Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[spectre9]

Launching off the moon is a smooth low g ride.

NASA did Apollo standing up. I assume there would be some sort of cushion for them to sit on that they could just plonk down over that bottom hatch.

I now notice that the ascent thrusters are folded down to fit in the 5m payload fairing so that's the trick they're employing here to squeeze the lander in.

[simonbp]

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?

Hatch opens down and they pull it up after getting in the ascent pod?

[RocketmanUS]

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?

Hatch opens down and they pull it up after getting in the ascent pod?

That sound good and the hatch could be used as a ladder to go up or down.

[simonbp]

You don't really need a ladder for that vertical distance at lunar gravity (from personal experience).

[kkattula]

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.

That's your assumption.

Efficient descent profiles require multiple firings of the descent engine and then deep throttling for terminal descent.
 
Ascent engine thrust is probably still within the range of descent engine throttle, even for the small pumpkin ascender, but since ISP is reduced by throttling, they'd need more fuel.
 
Using the descent engine at full throttle for ascent, ends up in an impractically low orbit, and excessive G's. Plus it still needs more fuel for the weight of the larger engine and tanks.
 
So it can make sense to use separate ascent engines on a minimalist design. The trades would be different for a reusable lander.
 
Secondary consideration is damage to the descent engine bell as happened on some Apollo landings.
 
Edit: And they can't abort if they lose the descent engine if there isn't an ascent engine.

Multiple smaller descent engines, then dropping some of them plus tanks might work, but introduces other issues.

[kkattula]

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.

This isn't 1969, the landing should be automated. At most the crew might need to trigger an abort, or command the computer to steer away from obstacles. They could do that with a tablet computer on a stalk.
 
Lightweight seats that fold up for easy ingress/egress.
 
Looks to be less cramped than a Soyuz re-entry module.

[Robert Thompson]

You don't really need a ladder for that vertical distance at lunar gravity (from personal experience).

[jnc]

This isn't 1969, the landing should be automated.

Actually, even the originals had the ability to fully auto-land, although they had no way to sense ground conditions (i.e. boulders, etc). None of the landings actually used it, though (although generally the astronauts let the computer fly it to relatively close to the landing). This is all covered in some detail in an excellent recent books, "Digital Apollo" (David Mindell).

Noel

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Nice article Chris.

I noticed that they showed that the lander concept will fit the most restrictive volume faring, the F9/FH faring. The shape and lengths of the Atlas V and Delta IV farings are different from that shown in the drawing.

[ChefPat]

You don't really need a ladder for that vertical distance at lunar gravity (from personal experience).

 

[RocketmanUS]

Looking at this PDF
exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Lockheed_Martin.pdf

Could GS be looking at using a commercial made Atlas phase II launch vehicle for the Lunar plans?

[Zed_Noir]

Looking at this PDF
exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Lockheed_Martin.pdf

Could GS be looking at using a commercial made Atlas phase II launch vehicle for the Lunar plans?

Interesting PDF. Golden Spike will not be paying for Atlas phase II development IMO. They want something they can buy in the near term.

[Avron]

Wow a pdf.,. gonna invest.. no question...

[Ben the Space Brit]

Looking at this PDF
exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Lockheed_Martin.pdf

Could GS be looking at using a commercial made Atlas phase II launch vehicle for the Lunar plans?

Interesting PDF. Golden Spike will not be paying for Atlas phase II development IMO. They want something they can buy in the near term.

Agreed: It's Delta-IV, Atlas-V, Delta-IVH, Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy only for now.

[Warren Platts]

Tweet:

GoldenSpike ‏@GoldenSpikeCo 
New news @GoldenSpikeCo tomorrow, stay tuned

Not going to say what I think it's all about....

[Robert Thompson]

$100 after the lander.

[Warren Platts]

Nope. Astronaut Jim Lovell is going to be joining their team of advisors:

https://twitter.com/GoldenSpikeCo/status/334702458125295617/photo/1

[simonbp]

One heck of a spokesman...

[kkattula]

Nope. Astronaut Jim Lovell is going to be joining their team of advisors:

https://twitter.com/GoldenSpikeCo/status/334702458125295617/photo/1

Definitely a welcome addition.
 
But I'm not sure about the underlying symbolism. A guy who memorably failed to land on the Moon associated with a company trying to land people on the Moon?
 
Maybe he figures GS is his best chance of finally getting there?
 

[astrobrian]

He is definitely qualified, and deserving of a chance to make it all the way there.