Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[QuantumG]

They want a separate ascent engine because there's this old school belief that one-use hypergolic engines are more reliable than reusable engines. The trades for engine reuse were probably in the 180 lunar lander design configurations that were evaluated in the study.

[RocketmanUS]

They want a separate ascent engine because there's this old school belief that one-use hypergolic engines are more reliable than reusable engines. The trades for engine reuse were probably in the 180 lunar lander design configurations that were evaluated in the study.

And yet the CSM had multiple firings of it's main engine. And the there is the space shuttle OMS engines.

Edit:
I still think an Apollo LEM descent stage would be better over all and could be launch on Atlas V or Delta IV.

[Lar]

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.

presumably you inspect for that on landing (or as soon as it deploys which may be much earlier) and fix it while on the surface

[Jim]

It isn't old school, it is fact. 

[Lar]

It isn't old school, it is fact. 

Unsubstantiated.

[Jim]

Wrong.  It is intuitively obvious.  Adding the proof would be redundant and a waste.

[QuantumG]

Wrong.  It is intuitively obvious.  Adding the proof would be redundant and a waste.

Well how can we argue with that?

[spectre9]

They said a Lunar Lander can fit in a 5m payload fairing!!!   

I don't believe it. Must be a joke. Goes against everything I've ever seen from NASA. 

[RocketmanUS]

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.

presumably you inspect for that on landing (or as soon as it deploys which may be much earlier) and fix it while on the surface

So once launch to LEO lower the ascent engines and check the vehicle out before TLI. That would work.

They want a separate ascent engine because there's this old school belief that one-use hypergolic engines are more reliable than reusable engines. The trades for engine reuse were probably in the 180 lunar lander design configurations that were evaluated in the study.

It isn't old school, it is fact. 

Then why did we reuse the OMS engines on the space shuttle or am I missing something here.

[Lar]

They said a Lunar Lander can fit in a 5m payload fairing!!!   

I don't believe it. Must be a joke. Goes against everything I've ever seen from NASA. 

Maybe NASA isn't doing it. Maybe that's the point.

Wait... were you trolling again? Sorry, never mind.

[spectre9]

They said a Lunar Lander can fit in a 5m payload fairing!!!   

I don't believe it. Must be a joke. Goes against everything I've ever seen from NASA. 

Maybe NASA isn't doing it. Maybe that's the point.

Wait... were you trolling again? Sorry, never mind.

It just seems extremely small, not that it bothers me. I like small.

The seats inside the pumpkin wouldn't be any worse than in the Soyuz.

NG is a trusted company and has experience with manned Lunar landers.

This is what a lander could look like if no consideration is given to bloating the design for high ISP fuel, large airlocks and having 4 crew.

I'm sorry I'm just annoyed about some of Bolden's recent comments continually referring to Altair like it's the only way to get to the Lunar surface.

[sdsds]

The ergonomics of the ascent pod seating are unclear. Where are the displays and controls? Can both crew members see and reach them even though they are facing opposite directions? Or is this a "pilot and passenger" paradigm rather than "commander and pilot", i.e. does only one person need to access the controls?

Also I can't quite reconcile the two views of the lower portion of the vehicle. Where is the habitat vis-a-vis the descent propellant tanks?

[QuantumG]

Do they land this sitting down? If not, how do they abort a descent? Scramble from the descent stage to the ascent stage?

[RocketmanUS]

The ergonomics of the ascent pod seating are unclear. Where are the displays and controls? Can both crew members see and reach them even though they are facing opposite directions? Or is this a "pilot and passenger" paradigm rather than "commander and pilot", i.e. does only one person need to access the controls?

Also I can't quite reconcile the two views of the lower portion of the vehicle. Where is the habitat vis-a-vis the descent propellant tanks?

1 ) could be flat screen with joy stick and foot pedals or auto pilot
2 ) two propellant tanks on each side.

[Chris Bergin]

Mainly about NASA's stance of not wanting to go to the moon, with the GS news at the end, due the ironic relationship with the main angle.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/return-moon-send-nasa-square-one-bolden/

There's a thread on the HSF Moon section for any comments not to do with GS:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31860.0

[Zed_Noir]

The ergonomics of the ascent pod seating are unclear. Where are the displays and controls? Can both crew members see and reach them even though they are facing opposite directions? Or is this a "pilot and passenger" paradigm rather than "commander and pilot", i.e. does only one person need to access the controls?

Could be like modern fighter jets. Helmet mounted heads up displays and side arm controller sticks.

[Proponent]

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

You mean "hatches" rather than "air locks," no?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

You mean "hatches" rather than "air locks," no?

Yes, sorry that was sloppy of me! The whole thing is barely big enough to be an airlock 

[Rocket Science]

Mainly about NASA's stance of not wanting to go to the moon, with the GS news at the end, due the ironic relationship with the main angle.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/return-moon-send-nasa-square-one-bolden/

There's a thread on the HSF Moon section for any comments not to do with GS:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31860.0

Nice piece Chris! I like LM’s approach for a Hab section that acts like a mud room/airlock to the ascent stage abit on the small size and minimalist but functional in approach given the faring size...

[Nathan]

I don't quite understand how two people could enter the ascent stage, close the hatch and sit down. They'd have to kind of hover over the hatch.
What am I missing?