Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, sorry I didn't notice the paper when I first skimmed through. Nice paper. More like the Soviet Union's approach to lunar landing.

Funny, I don't see mention of using a crasher stage, other than the solids. No mention of single-launching the lander to lunar orbit using a modified  SEP comm-sat as an electric stage, though, which maybe should be considered, since it is as off-the-shelf as the propulsion modules they were considering (and more off-the-shelf than a topped-up Centaur stage). I suppose it is at a disadvantage for being slower, but only by a few months. Funny that they didn't even consider it.

[HMXHMX]

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.)

Once upon a time, 30 years ago, I thought flying without a pressure hull (suit only) was clever.  Fred Haise took me aside and ended that notion..."what if you throw up in your suit?"  The voice of experience.

I no longer think unpressurized is viable.

[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.)

Once upon a time, 30 years ago, I thought flying without a pressure hull (suit only) was clever.  Fred Haise took me aside and ended that notion..."what if you throw up in your suit?"  The voice of experience.

I no longer think unpressurized is viable.

LOL, good point. Minimalistic pressurized is a good idea, though. Sovietesque.

[Rocket Science]

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.)

Once upon a time, 30 years ago, I thought flying without a pressure hull (suit only) was clever.  Fred Haise took me aside and ended that notion..."what if you throw up in your suit?"  The voice of experience.

I no longer think unpressurized is viable.

I agree, when all is said and done it will end up being pressurized...

[mmeijeri]

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.

In addition the mass to LEO doesn't include a second set of engines, pressurisation and power systems, which would be crucial for an EELV and still important for FH. IVF would also shine both for limiting mass to LEO and mass through TLI.

[simonbp]

It sounds like ULA's main involvement is through Centaur, with the Atlas V as an almost incidental additional back up.

Also, WRT your sig, Zero Point is in Huntsville, and the ULA Centaurs are made just down the road in Decatur.

[DougSpace]

It's an interesting concept.  Not too complex.

But they really aren't taking advantage of the Falcon Heavy.  The individual ticket prices would be considerably less if larger numbers of people could travel at once.  Also, the costs would be a fair amount lower if some of the in-space hardware would be reusable.

But as an intermediate step, selling trips to the Moon to countries, it might give them the capital to develop the more cost-effective architecture.

[Chris Bergin]

(link: http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=3840)


CSF President Michael Lopez-Alegria Statement on the Announcement of the Golden Spike Company

"Conquering the space frontier requires leadership at NASA and a partnership between commercial companies and governments," stated CSF President Michael Lopez-Alegria. "I'm thrilled to see the Golden Spike announcement, which harnesses space leaders with years of experience to launch an exciting new private space venture. In the last few years we've learned that commercial space, by speaking to the dreams and aspirations of people around the world, can create new excitement for space travel, bringing us ever closer to our shared goal of sustainably extending human activity beyond Earth."

About the Commercial Spaceflight Federation

The mission of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) is to promote the development of commercial human spaceflight, pursue ever-higher levels of safety, and share best practices and expertise throughout the industry. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s member companies, which include commercial spaceflight developers, operators, spaceports, suppliers, and service providers, are creating thousands of high-tech jobs nationwide, working to preserve American leadership in aerospace through technology innovation, and inspiring young people to pursue careers in science and engineering. For more information please visit www.commercialspaceflight.org or contact Executive Director Alex Saltman at [email protected] or at 202.349.1121.


# # #

[corrodedNut]

It sounds like ULA's main involvement is through Centaur, with the Atlas V as an almost incidental additional back up.

(From the GS PDF)

Falcon Heavy Centaur Equivalent
While not a new technology development per se, the placement of the Centaur onto a launch vehicle requires significant integration, though certainly much less than the development of a new vehicle like Ares would have required.

I have a hard time believing a Centaur will ever be integrated with a SpaceX vehicle. If FH is coming to the rescue then "Falcon Heavy Centaur Equivalent" i.e. Raptor, is the long-pole.

[Mongo62]

Golden Spike Brief -- 10.8 MB PDF

Remarks by Alan Stern -- 93 KB PDF

Remarks by Gerry Griffin -- 84 KB PDF

[Robotbeat]

Knock yourself out.

What do you honestly think of all this, if you can say?

[mmeijeri]

I have a hard time believing a Centaur will ever be integrated with a SpaceX vehicle. If FH is coming to the rescue then "Falcon Heavy Centaur Equivalent" i.e. Raptor, is the long-pole.

If FH is successful (great if it happens, but not a given) a kerolox EDS might make more sense.

[tigerade]

So a modified Centaur on a Falcon Heavy?

Interesting.

[ugordan]

If FH is successful (great if it happens, but not a given) a kerolox EDS might make more sense.

Did you read the paper linked? The fact FH uses kerolox is what kills its high energy performance, driving them contemplating loading up a full Centaur on top.

The utility of FH would be in cutting down the number of launches for a given mission element from two to one, eliminating propellant transfer etc.

[mmeijeri]

Did you read the paper linked? The fact FH uses kerolox is what kills its high energy performance, driving them contemplating loading up a full Centaur on top.

Of course I did. The advantage of kerolox would be not needing to develop a LOX/LH2 stage.

The utility of FH would be in cutting down the number of launches for a given mission element from two to one, eliminating propellant transfer etc.

The utility of FH would be much lower specific launch costs (only if it is successful, which is not a given) and a large enough mass to LEO to make a kerolox EDS practical without refueling.

[o riley!]

I don't know if anybody noticed but the projected cost is only for the falcon heavy with 2 launches and aprox 100m per launch. But if they use Atlas 5 with 4 launches per mission and complicated orbit refeul maneuvers this proberbly could be more then 800m.

[manboy]

Knock yourself out.

I wonder what Gene Cernan thinks of the picture they modified.

[QuantumG]

Reading the paper.. they discount the Falcon Heavy payload to LEO/GTO/LTO by 10%. I wonder if they're aware that 3.6% of the intended payload of the Falcon Heavy is the fairing.
 

[Rocket Science]

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

Any feedback on what they had to say would be greatly appreciated! 

[Longhorn John]

I think it is fair to say that all of the press questions were skeptical.

That's their job. It's not a tweet-up. Doesn't mean a jot how many people were there, it's the age of the internet and every single major publication has a story on this today. Print media is dead.