NASA Announces Partnership Opportunities for U.S. Commercial Lunar Lander Capabi

[catdlr]

NASA Announces Partnership Opportunities for U.S. Commercial Lunar Lander Capabilities

Jan. 16, 2014
RELEASE 14-020

NASA Announces Partnership Opportunities for U.S. Commercial Lunar Lander Capabilities
Building on the progress of NASA's partnerships with the U.S. commercial space industry to develop new spacecraft and rockets capable of delivering cargo, and soon, astronauts to low Earth orbit, the agency is now looking for opportunities to spur commercial cargo transportation capabilities to the surface of the moon.

NASA has released an announcement seeking proposals to partner in the development of reliable and cost-effective commercial robotic lunar lander capabilities that will enable the delivery of payloads to the lunar surface. Such capabilities could support commercial activities on the moon while enabling new science and exploration missions of interest to NASA and the larger scientific and academic communities.

NASA's new Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) initiative calls for proposals from the U.S. private sector that would lead to one or more no-funds exchanged Space Act Agreements (SAA). NASA’s contribution to a partnership would be on an unfunded basis and could include the technical expertise of NASA staff, access to NASA center test facilities, equipment loans, or software for lander development and testing.

"As NASA pursues an ambitious plan for humans to explore an asteroid and Mars, U.S. industry will create opportunities for NASA to advance new technologies on the moon," said Greg Williams, NASA's deputy associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. "Our strategic investments in the innovations of our commercial partners have brought about successful commercial resupply of the International Space Station, to be followed in the coming years by commercial crew. Lunar CATALYST will help us advance our goals to reach farther destinations."
 
The moon has scientific value and the potential to yield resources, such as water and oxygen, in relatively close proximity to Earth to help sustain deep space exploration. Commercial lunar transportation capabilities could support science and exploration objectives, such as sample returns, geophysical network deployment, resource prospecting, and technology demonstrations. These services would require the ability to land small (66 to 220 pound, or 30 to 100 kilogram) and medium (551 to 1,102 pound, or 250 to 500 kg) class payloads at various lunar sites.

"In recent years, lunar orbiting missions, such as NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, have revealed evidence of water and other volatiles, but to understand the extent and accessibility of these resources, we need to reach the surface and explore up close," said Jason Crusan, director of Advanced Exploration Systems at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Commercial lunar landing capabilities could help prospect for and utilize these resources."

Lunar CATALYST supports the internationally shared space exploration goals of the Global Exploration Roadmap (GER) NASA and 11 other space agencies around the world released in August. The GER acknowledges the value of public-private partnerships and commercial services to enable sustainable exploration of asteroids, the moon and Mars.

Commercial lunar cargo transportation systems developed through Lunar CATALYST could build on lessons learned throughout NASA's 50 years of spaceflight. New propulsion and autonomous landing technologies currently are being tested through NASA's Morpheus and Mighty Eagle projects.

NASA will host a pre-proposal teleconference on Monday, Jan. 27 during which proposers will have an opportunity to ask questions about the announcement. Proposals from industry are due by March 17. The announcement of selections is targeted for April with SAAs targeted to be in place by May.

The Advanced Exploration Systems Division in NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate manages Lunar CATALYST. Advanced Exploration Systems pioneers new approaches for rapidly developing prototype systems, demonstrating key capabilities and validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond Earth orbit.

As NASA works with U.S. industry to develop the next generation of U.S. spaceflight services, the agency also is developing the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS), a crew capsule and heavy-lift rocket to provide an entirely new capability for human exploration. Designed to be flexible for launching spacecraft for crew and cargo missions, SLS and Orion will expand human presence beyond low-Earth orbit and enable new missions of exploration across the solar system, including to a near-Earth asteroid and Mars.

For more information about the announcement and teleconference, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst
-end-

[QuantumG]

Could be very interesting. I imagine Moon Express is gearing up to make a proposal.

[Rocket Science]

Now we're cookin'!

[ChrisWilson68]

I was really surprised and excited to read this, right up until I read the words "no-funds exchanged".  To me, that makes this announcement pretty meaningless.

They keep talking in the announcement about the success of COTS/CRS and commercial crew, and say this will be applying the same approach to lunar cargo.  But the money was critical to the successes of those other programs.  Very disappointing.

[R7]

Could be very interesting. I imagine Moon Express is gearing up to make a proposal.

Who are the other likely parties? Too little for Golden Spike?

[QuantumG]

Could be very interesting. I imagine Moon Express is gearing up to make a proposal.

Who are the other likely parties? Too little for Golden Spike?

Are they even interested in robotic Lunar Landers?

[Ronsmytheiii]

Could be very interesting. I imagine Moon Express is gearing up to make a proposal.

Who are the other likely parties? Too little for Golden Spike?

Are they even interested in robotic Lunar Landers?

Yup:

The commercial spaceflight company Golden Spike – which aims fly private missions to the moon by 2020 – has teamed up with the New York-based firm Honeybee Robotics to design robotic rovers for the planned lunar expeditions.

http://www.space.com/23946-golden-spike-private-moon-rover-designer.html

I was really surprised and excited to read this, right up until I read the words "no-funds exchanged".  To me, that makes this announcement pretty meaningless.

They keep talking in the announcement about the success of COTS/CRS and commercial crew, and say this will be applying the same approach to lunar cargo.  But the money was critical to the successes of those other programs.  Very disappointing.

Why?  NASA has other services that can help these companies. Blue Origin continued their CCDev development in unfunded agreements, Bigelow has done the same in the past and so did SNC.  NASA has intellectual property and infrastructure that while free to give away might be worth its weight in gold to these start-ups.

[QuantumG]

Yup:

The commercial spaceflight company Golden Spike – which aims fly private missions to the moon by 2020 – has teamed up with the New York-based firm Honeybee Robotics to design robotic rovers for the planned lunar expeditions.

http://www.space.com/23946-golden-spike-private-moon-rover-designer.html

Nope. Rover != Lander.

Edit: I stand corrected.

[Robotbeat]

Yup:

The commercial spaceflight company Golden Spike – which aims fly private missions to the moon by 2020 – has teamed up with the New York-based firm Honeybee Robotics to design robotic rovers for the planned lunar expeditions.

http://www.space.com/23946-golden-spike-private-moon-rover-designer.html

Nope. Rover != Lander.

I disagree. Any port in a storm. If this ever progresses to the point of funding, I'm sure Golden Spike would be interested in robotic landers as well. Same with other private Moon lander groups.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Yup:

The commercial spaceflight company Golden Spike – which aims fly private missions to the moon by 2020 – has teamed up with the New York-based firm Honeybee Robotics to design robotic rovers for the planned lunar expeditions.

http://www.space.com/23946-golden-spike-private-moon-rover-designer.html

Nope. Rover != Lander.

They (robots) need something to land on, from another part of the article:

To boost the scientific output of the expeditions, the company plans to send unmanned rovers to the moon ahead of the crew to collect samples from a wider area than the crew will be able to travel from their landing pad.The rovers will then meet up with the crew's spacecraft once it arrives, according to the mission plan.

[R7]

Yup:

The commercial spaceflight company Golden Spike – which aims fly private missions to the moon by 2020 – has teamed up with the New York-based firm Honeybee Robotics to design robotic rovers for the planned lunar expeditions.

http://www.space.com/23946-golden-spike-private-moon-rover-designer.html

Nope. Rover != Lander.

http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/GSC-Honeybee_NR-FINAL.pdf

Earlier this year, an international scientific workshop led by Golden Spike proposed new concepts for
lunar missions, including robotic-human expeditions. The proposal envisions sending robotic systems
to the Moon to collect sample
s ahead of a crewed Golden Spike expedition to retrieve the robot’s
cache.

That sort of implies a lander for robots.

[ChrisWilson68]

I was really surprised and excited to read this, right up until I read the words "no-funds exchanged".  To me, that makes this announcement pretty meaningless.

They keep talking in the announcement about the success of COTS/CRS and commercial crew, and say this will be applying the same approach to lunar cargo.  But the money was critical to the successes of those other programs.  Very disappointing.

Why?  NASA has other services that can help these companies. Blue Origin continued their CCDev development in unfunded agreements, Bigelow has done the same in the past and so did SNC.  NASA has intellectual property and infrastructure that while free to give away might be worth its weight in gold to these start-ups.

COTS/CRS and Commercial Crew, have resulted in operational capabilities that are in use, or that are on track to being operational if funding continues in the next two years.  Blue Origin's and Bigelow's operational capabilities are in the indefinite future.

NASA funding for commercial programs is a game changer.  Providing free advice and loaning equipment has some benefit, but it is not in the same class.

[jedsmd]

Could be very interesting. I imagine Moon Express is gearing up to make a proposal.

Who are the other likely parties? Too little for Golden Spike?

Astrobotic's planned lander just makes it into the medium payload class at 260Kg.

http://www.astrobotic.com/lander/

[yg1968]

Could SpaceX (with its next generation Dragon) and Bigelow (with its self landing habitat) be interested in this?

[ChrisWilson68]

Could SpaceX (with its next generation Dragon) and Bigelow (with its self landing habitat) be interested in this?

I doubt either company would be interested unless they see a market for services on the moon in the near or medium term, and I doubt they see that happening.

[butters]

This just makes me disappointed that NASA doesn't routinely provide technical assistance to U.S. companies unless they announce some sort of exceptional arrangement. Good on NASA for, in this particular instance, selectively agreeing to provide limited support to American companies that want pursue the commercial applications of space. And what with the lack of any money or stated intention of procuring any goods or services from their valued "partners", I don't see how this could get any more exciting.

[QuantumG]

This just makes me disappointed that NASA doesn't routinely provide technical assistance to U.S. companies unless they announce some sort of exceptional arrangement.

They do. For example, Moon Express has had a Reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA since 2010.

[wjbarnett]

Masten?

[JBF]

NASA is probably getting some political pressure to do something about going back to the moon.  This allows them to do that with no budget.

[newpylong]

This just makes me disappointed that NASA doesn't routinely provide technical assistance to U.S. companies unless they announce some sort of exceptional arrangement. Good on NASA for, in this particular instance, selectively agreeing to provide limited support to American companies that want pursue the commercial applications of space. And what with the lack of any money or stated intention of procuring any goods or services from their valued "partners", I don't see how this could get any more exciting.

Happens all the time. In this case, NASA is looking for proposals.

[newpylong]

NASA is probably getting some political pressure to do something about going back to the moon.  This allows them to do that with no budget.

They are under no pressure to land half a ton of equipment on the moon. 3 astronauts, maybe...

[Lar]

NASA is probably getting some political pressure to do something about going back to the moon.  This allows them to do that with no budget.

They are under no pressure to land half a ton of equipment on the moon. 3 astronauts, maybe...

That said, the RIGHT half ton would be far more useful than 3 astros... I for one want ISRU not flags and footprints.

[Go4TLI]

Could SpaceX (with its next generation Dragon) and Bigelow (with its self landing habitat) be interested in this?

I doubt either company would be interested unless they see a market for services on the moon in the near or medium term, and I doubt they see that happening.

Isn't this a little like talking out of both sides of your mouth given your own comments above? 

So with CRS/CCP, there is no concrete market outside of NASA yet according to you there are not enough funds being provided.

With this proposal, there is no market possibly even WITH NASA and you claim "disappointment" that NASA is not providing funds.  However, you suggest two companies would not be interested regardless because there is no market.  It's odd.....

Look, this is a positive step and there is no reason for people to suggest it is anything but that.  As others have mentioned there are things to be gained for both parties if something can potentially come out of it. 

[Go4TLI]

This just makes me disappointed that NASA doesn't routinely provide technical assistance to U.S. companies unless they announce some sort of exceptional arrangement.

That is not the case at all.  The ability to work with a company on a particular thing(s) does not require some sort of grand announcement. 

[Go4TLI]

NASA is probably getting some political pressure to do something about going back to the moon.  This allows them to do that with no budget.

They are under no pressure to land half a ton of equipment on the moon. 3 astronauts, maybe...

That said, the RIGHT half ton would be far more useful than 3 astros... I for one want ISRU not flags and footprints.

It seems like you are implying, "I want to establish an infrastructure for creating water, oxygen, rocket fuel, etc.  However, I don't want people there.  At the very least I don't want people there until I have that infrastructure." 

To me it's kind of like saying those that pioneered the West should have never left until after the railroads were established and towns were there waiting for them along the way to move into.

[Lar]

That said, the RIGHT half ton would be far more useful than 3 astros... I for one want ISRU not flags and footprints.

It seems like you are implying, "I want to establish an infrastructure for creating water, oxygen, rocket fuel, etc.  However, I don't want people there.  At the very least I don't want people there until I have that infrastructure." 

To me it's kind of like saying those that pioneered the West should have never left until after the railroads were established and towns were there waiting for them along the way to move into.

If in 1840 we had robots with the capabilities we do now, and if I had been alive then, and if humans had to bring their own breathing air with them, not just tools to hunt abundant game... I might well have been arguing that, yes... [1]

I DO want people on the moon... thousands or millions! ... but I think, like Paul Spudis[2], that robotic constructed infrastructure first makes the whole thing scale up a lot faster. Sending people first means I will die before there's any chance I can go. IMHO. So landers that can land a half ton, especially if they're at all reusable, might enable a lot!

Read this counterfactual retrospective history to get an idea of what could be accomplished.
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/a-decade-of-the-vision-for-space-exploration-an-alternative-retrospective/

1 - In other words, your analogy is flawed, to put it mildly. IMHO anyway.
2 - a fairly seminal paper  http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Bibliography/p/102.pdf 

[Go4TLI]

ISRU has it's place certainly.  However it remains undetermined to what extent consumables can be created. 

Therefore it is a trade between just setting up shop "somewhere" and hoping for the best that you get what you want or do a little prospecting and exploring around first.  It also is a further trade if that can be accomplished most efficiently with robots (how many, what types, how long, etc) vs. a little good old-fashioned boots on the ground. 

[Lar]

ISRU has it's place certainly.  However it remains undetermined to what extent consumables can be created. 

Therefore it is a trade between just setting up shop "somewhere" and hoping for the best that you get what you want or do a little prospecting and exploring around first.  It also is a further trade if that can be accomplished most efficiently with robots (how many, what types, how long, etc) vs. a little good old-fashioned boots on the ground.

Robots get better and better each year. Smaller, more capable, longer lasting. People tend to consume about the same amount of calories, water, heat, oxygen etc as they did  in Apollo days, or even 1000 years ago[1]

We are ALREADY at the point where the cost of a flags and footprints sortie, to one location,even with 100% prospecting focus, will buy you an entire host of bots gathering much more data in the same time, and staying operational for far longer. As time goes by and politicians dither, this trade will get skewed farther and farther in favor of machines.

I just don't see it as debatable, really. YMMV.  Start with machines. Send people once infrastructure is in place. Because people ARE more versatile as generalists.  (that said, a good honest trade study or 3 should be carried out to validate this.. again, see the Spudis LaVoie paper I referenced, it's in there)

This is a bit offtopic for this particular thread so I'll stop.


1 - our current tendency to be a bit more obese than back then notwithstanding... it makes it worse not better

[Go4TLI]

ISRU has it's place certainly.  However it remains undetermined to what extent consumables can be created. 

Therefore it is a trade between just setting up shop "somewhere" and hoping for the best that you get what you want or do a little prospecting and exploring around first.  It also is a further trade if that can be accomplished most efficiently with robots (how many, what types, how long, etc) vs. a little good old-fashioned boots on the ground.

Robots get better and better each year. Smaller, more capable, longer lasting. People tend to consume about the same amount of calories, water, heat, oxygen etc as they did  in Apollo days, or even 1000 years ago[1]

We are ALREADY at the point where the cost of a flags and footprints sortie, to one location,even with 100% prospecting focus, will buy you an entire host of bots gathering much more data in the same time, and staying operational for far longer. As time goes by and politicians dither, this trade will get skewed farther and farther in favor of machines.

I just don't see it as debatable, really. YMMV.  Start with machines. Send people once infrastructure is in place. Because people ARE more versatile as generalists.  (that said, a good honest trade study or 3 should be carried out to validate this.. again, see the Spudis LaVoie paper I referenced, it's in there)

This is a bit offtopic for this particular thread so I'll stop.


1 - our current tendency to be a bit more obese than back then notwithstanding... it makes it worse not better

I'll just gently suggest that what has been accomplished by the MERs and Curiosity in the last 8 years could have been accomplished in days with a human. 

Robots have a place.  So do people. 

That is all. 

[Lar]

I'll just gently suggest that what has been accomplished by the MERs and Curiosity in the last 8 years could have been accomplished in days with a human. 

Not for the same budget.

Now really, I'm done.

[jongoff]

NASA funding for commercial programs is a game changer.  Providing free advice and loaning equipment has some benefit, but it is not in the same class.

Bingo.

That said, I am a fan of Non-Reimburseable SAAs, even when they don't lead to follow-on paid work.  For instance, Altius has an NR-SAA working with NASA Langley on some space manipulator technologies. It's been a useful relationship, and could help reduce our cost of getting to a commercially sellable product.

~Jon

[QuantumG]

NASA funding for commercial programs is a game changer.  Providing free advice and loaning equipment has some benefit, but it is not in the same class.

Bingo.

Another way to look at it: these non-reimbursable Space Act Agreements will be a step up from the reimbursable Space Act Agreement that Moon Express has had since 2010 - that is, NASA will actually pay their own costs.
 

[Prober]

 
Key is in the fine print 

[TrevorMonty]

This is a step in right direction.
I can't see them having the funding to do anything significant in regards to moon until Commercial Crew project and Orion are complete.  NASA has slowing be building technology for lunar exploration and bases over the years, (see Desert Rat program) so they will not be starting from scratch once a lunar project is given the go ahead.

In the mean time a lot can be achieved with small robotic landers and rovers, especially surveying for ISRU.
I do like Moon Express idea of launching landers and rovers as secondary payloads on GTO satellite deployments. This allows missions to be done with 10s millions instead of 100s millions.  With addition of a SEP tug for GTO - LLO transfer of these landers, the payload to lunar surface could be doubled.

[kkattula]

...So landers that can land a half ton, especially if they're at all reusable, might enable a lot!

Landers that can land one or two tons, could also land humans, surface equipment, an empty ascent vehicle, ascent propellant, etc. Current medium launch vehicles have the capacity to send landers of that size in a single launch.

I have no problem sending robots first to prepare the way and thoroughly prove the landing technology. I just don't see why it has to be either or.

[simonbp]

...So landers that can land a half ton, especially if they're at all reusable, might enable a lot!

Landers that can land one or two tons, could also land humans, surface equipment, an empty ascent vehicle, ascent propellant, etc. Current medium launch vehicles have the capacity to send landers of that size in a single launch.

What, you mean like the circa-1961 JPL plan to land a man on the Moon in a souped-up Surveyor, and then have him collect and assemble the ascent/Earth return stage from pieces already landed on the Moon by four other souped-up Surveyors?

[cartman]

What, you mean like the circa-1961 JPL plan to land a man on the Moon in a souped-up Surveyor, and then have him collect and assemble the ascent/Earth return stage from pieces already landed on the Moon by four other souped-up Surveyors?

That sounds interesting! Where can I find more info about that?

[Prober]

This is a step in right direction.
I can't see them having the funding to do anything significant in regards to moon until Commercial Crew project and Orion are complete.  NASA has slowing be building technology for lunar exploration and bases over the years, (see Desert Rat program) so they will not be starting from scratch once a lunar project is given the go ahead.

In the mean time a lot can be achieved with small robotic landers and rovers, especially surveying for ISRU.
I do like Moon Express idea of launching landers and rovers as secondary payloads on GTO satellite deployments. This allows missions to be done with 10s millions instead of 100s millions.  With addition of a SEP tug for GTO - LLO transfer of these landers, the payload to lunar surface could be doubled.

How about this project; http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29149.15

any linkage?

[Lar]

I have no problem sending robots first to prepare the way and thoroughly prove the landing technology. I just don't see why it has to be either or.

Me either.

[ChrisWilson68]

Could SpaceX (with its next generation Dragon) and Bigelow (with its self landing habitat) be interested in this?

I doubt either company would be interested unless they see a market for services on the moon in the near or medium term, and I doubt they see that happening.

Isn't this a little like talking out of both sides of your mouth given your own comments above? 

So with CRS/CCP, there is no concrete market outside of NASA yet according to you there are not enough funds being provided.

With this proposal, there is no market possibly even WITH NASA and you claim "disappointment" that NASA is not providing funds.  However, you suggest two companies would not be interested regardless because there is no market.  It's odd.....

You seem to be missing the fact that the government buying a service is one kind of demand that can form a valid market.  So, I would say there is a market for crew and cargo transfer to the ISS because the government is willing to pay for that service.  It makes sense for companies to have business plans to address that market.

I'm definitely not saying I don't think SpaceX or Bigelow would be interested if NASA were willing to start buying commercial cargo delivery to the moon and partially-fund the development of a system to do so (NASA funding for development is appropriate to offset the risk that NASA will cancel its plans after the private companies have invested money themselves to build the system).

Look, this is a positive step and there is no reason for people to suggest it is anything but that.  As others have mentioned there are things to be gained for both parties if something can potentially come out of it.

I agree it's a small positive.  But the announcement keeps talking about COTS, CRS, and CCiDev as if they are now going to do the same thing with lunar transport.  The fact that it's really not at all the same thing is the cause for my disappointment.

In my view, there's currently not enough demand to justify the cost of building a commercial system for landing cargo on the moon.  If NASA were to have a program similar to COTS and CRS but for the moon, then there would be enough demand, because NASA would be providing that demand.  That would be exciting.  That's what start of the announcement implied to me.  But it's not what is going to be done by the announcement.  So, in my opinion, even after this announcement there still just isn't a business case for building a commercial system to deliver cargo to the moon.

[ChrisWilson68]

Really, I suspect the reason for this announcement is that the Morpheus team is looking to justify their continued existence.  If they can give anything to any private enterprise at all, they can use that as a reason for their own program to continue and not be cut.  If that's true, this is really the opposite of COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCiCap, and CCtCap -- an attempt to get the government to keep funding an in-house program rather than spending those funds through a competitive, fixed-price contract with a private enterprise, with additional funds raised by the private enterprise.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Really, I suspect the reason for this announcement is that the Morpheus team is looking to justify their continued existence.  If they can give anything to any private enterprise at all, they can use that as a reason for their own program to continue and not be cut.  If that's true, this is really the opposite of COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCiCap, and CCtCap -- an attempt to get the government to keep funding an in-house program rather than spending those funds through a competitive, fixed-price contract with a private enterprise, with additional funds raised by the private enterprise.

[citation needed]

[ChrisWilson68]

Really, I suspect the reason for this announcement is that the Morpheus team is looking to justify their continued existence.  If they can give anything to any private enterprise at all, they can use that as a reason for their own program to continue and not be cut.  If that's true, this is really the opposite of COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCiCap, and CCtCap -- an attempt to get the government to keep funding an in-house program rather than spending those funds through a competitive, fixed-price contract with a private enterprise, with additional funds raised by the private enterprise.

[citation needed]

No, a citation isn't needed for speculation when I'm being perfectly clear that I'm speculating.

[A_M_Swallow]

Really, I suspect the reason for this announcement is that the Morpheus team is looking to justify their continued existence.  If they can give anything to any private enterprise at all, they can use that as a reason for their own program to continue and not be cut.  If that's true, this is really the opposite of COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCiCap, and CCtCap -- an attempt to get the government to keep funding an in-house program rather than spending those funds through a competitive, fixed-price contract with a private enterprise, with additional funds raised by the private enterprise.

[citation needed]

The announcement mentions Morpheus so it is the citation requested.

There was also a partnership announcement covering the MMSEV in its rover and short range shuttle forms.

[Tea Party Space Czar]

I found this rather exciting.  Its good policy. 

NASA's new Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) initiative calls for proposals from the U.S. private sector that would lead to one or more no-funds exchanged Space Act Agreements (SAA). The purpose of these SAAs would be to encourage the development of robotic lunar landers that can be integrated with U.S. commercial launch capabilities to deliver small and medium class payloads to the lunar surface.

No funds exchanged using an SAA.  I know Congressman Wolf was upset with China landing a lander on the moon.  Maybe we can land 10.  The public-private partnership utilizing SAAs are the way to go.

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/159394-OTHER-001-001.pdf

Section 1.3 could do a lot for a firm with some seed capital.

I am curious to see what others here think about this.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

Edit: merged in from new, identical topic started in a different section. - Lar

[JohnFornaro]

NASA funding for commercial programs is a game changer.  Providing free advice and loaning equipment has some benefit, but it is not in the same class.

Bingo.

That said, I am a fan of Non-Reimburseable SAAs, even when they don't lead to follow-on paid work.  For instance, Altius has an NR-SAA working with NASA Langley on some space manipulator technologies. It's been a useful relationship, and could help reduce our cost of getting to a commercially sellable product.

~Jon

Yahbut:  Ya gotta have the internal funding to do this.  Disposable income, so to speak.  Not sayin' it's a bad marketing idea at all; just pointing out that the relationship does have a measurable cost.

[JohnFornaro]

Really, I suspect the reason for this announcement is that the Morpheus team is looking to justify their continued existence.  If they can give anything to any private enterprise at all, they can use that as a reason for their own program to continue and not be cut.  If that's true, this is really the opposite of COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCiCap, and CCtCap -- an attempt to get the government to keep funding an in-house program rather than spending those funds through a competitive, fixed-price contract with a private enterprise, with additional funds raised by the private enterprise.

That's not a bad speculation, I'd say.  A legitimate means to drum up popular support.

[JohnFornaro]

NASA is probably getting some political pressure to do something about going back to the moon.  This allows them to do that with no budget.

They are under no pressure to land half a ton of equipment on the moon. 3 astronauts, maybe...

That said, the RIGHT half ton would be far more useful than 3 astros... I for one want ISRU not flags and footprints.

It seems like you are implying, "I want to establish an infrastructure for creating water, oxygen, rocket fuel, etc.  However, I don't want people there.  At the very least I don't want people there until I have that infrastructure." 

To me it's kind of like saying those that pioneered the West should have never left until after the railroads were established and towns were there waiting for them along the way to move into.

JBF  Go4TLI [Edit:  Whoops! Wrong poster.  My bad.] misses, unfortunately. Lar is not dismissing humans.  He is asserting, and I agree, that the RIGHT half ton of equipment would be more useful than astros at this time.

For example, an operating solar powered parabolic mirror power system (PMP) previously landed at your site, ready to hook up, would be of great benefit to the astros.

[jongoff]

NASA funding for commercial programs is a game changer.  Providing free advice and loaning equipment has some benefit, but it is not in the same class.

Bingo.

That said, I am a fan of Non-Reimburseable SAAs, even when they don't lead to follow-on paid work.  For instance, Altius has an NR-SAA working with NASA Langley on some space manipulator technologies. It's been a useful relationship, and could help reduce our cost of getting to a commercially sellable product.

~Jon

Yahbut:  Ya gotta have the internal funding to do this.  Disposable income, so to speak.  Not sayin' it's a bad marketing idea at all; just pointing out that the relationship does have a measurable cost.

You're preaching to the choir. We probably could've gotten a lot more out of our NR-SAA had we actually had anywhere near the level of IRAD availability I thought we'd have when we signed it. So yeah, if the GLXP teams have no real money (ie most of them), this won't help very much. But for those who do (the 2 or 3 that might fit in this category), especially those who are already paying NASA via a reimbursable SAA (ie MoonEx), this might be a reasonably good deal.

~Jon

[JohnFornaro]

NASA funding for commercial programs is a game changer.  Providing free advice and loaning equipment has some benefit, but it is not in the same class.

Bingo.

That said, I am a fan of Non-Reimburseable SAAs, even when they don't lead to follow-on paid work.  For instance, Altius has an NR-SAA working with NASA Langley on some space manipulator technologies. It's been a useful relationship, and could help reduce our cost of getting to a commercially sellable product.

~Jon

Yahbut:  Ya gotta have the internal funding to do this.  Disposable income, so to speak.  Not sayin' it's a bad marketing idea at all; just pointing out that the relationship does have a measurable cost.

You're preaching to the choir. We probably could've gotten a lot more out of our NR-SAA had we actually had anywhere near the level of IRAD availability I thought we'd have when we signed it. So yeah, if the GLXP teams have no real money (ie most of them), this won't help very much. But for those who do (the 2 or 3 that might fit in this category), especially those who are already paying NASA via a reimbursable SAA (ie MoonEx), this might be a reasonably good deal.

~Jon

Good:  Glad we agree.  CATALYST is a good idea in principle.  If they could just authorize $100K each for, say, five proposers...

[A_M_Swallow]

Good:  Glad we agree.  CATALYST is a good idea in principle.  If they could just authorize $100K each for, say, five proposers...

NASA may be able to think of a way to disguise the $100k payments as a competition prize.  In the aerospace industry $100k will only pay for 1 person for a year.

CCDev got its first $50 million from the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009', there may be a similar Act in a couple of years time.

[Prober]

Good:  Glad we agree.  CATALYST is a good idea in principle.  If they could just authorize $100K each for, say, five proposers...

NASA may be able to think of a way to disguise the $100k payments as a competition prize.  In the aerospace industry $100k will only pay for 1 person for a year.

CCDev got its first $50 million from the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009', there may be a similar Act in a couple of years time.

Maybe Google can redo their lunar landing and kick in say 50 million?  Think today this kind of funding would move this faster this time around.

[newpylong]

Really, I suspect the reason for this announcement is that the Morpheus team is looking to justify their continued existence.  If they can give anything to any private enterprise at all, they can use that as a reason for their own program to continue and not be cut.  If that's true, this is really the opposite of COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCiCap, and CCtCap -- an attempt to get the government to keep funding an in-house program rather than spending those funds through a competitive, fixed-price contract with a private enterprise, with additional funds raised by the private enterprise.

Justification not required. There are toilets at KSC that cost more than Morpheus.

[jongoff]

Really, I suspect the reason for this announcement is that the Morpheus team is looking to justify their continued existence.  If they can give anything to any private enterprise at all, they can use that as a reason for their own program to continue and not be cut.  If that's true, this is really the opposite of COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCiCap, and CCtCap -- an attempt to get the government to keep funding an in-house program rather than spending those funds through a competitive, fixed-price contract with a private enterprise, with additional funds raised by the private enterprise.

Justification not required. There are toilets at KSC that cost more than Morpheus.

There are $60M toilets at KSC?

~Jon

[simonbp]

Yeah, Morpheus is cheap for a NASA internal program, but super expensive compared to its Armadillo ancestors.

But the targets of Partnership in question are much more in the Armadillo model than NASA JSC.

[newpylong]

Really, I suspect the reason for this announcement is that the Morpheus team is looking to justify their continued existence.  If they can give anything to any private enterprise at all, they can use that as a reason for their own program to continue and not be cut.  If that's true, this is really the opposite of COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCiCap, and CCtCap -- an attempt to get the government to keep funding an in-house program rather than spending those funds through a competitive, fixed-price contract with a private enterprise, with additional funds raised by the private enterprise.

Justification not required. There are toilets at KSC that cost more than Morpheus.

There are $60M toilets at KSC?

~Jon

No, but there aren't $60M Morpheus(i?) either. The entire program has only cost $14M since 2010.

[Lurker Steve]

Good:  Glad we agree.  CATALYST is a good idea in principle.  If they could just authorize $100K each for, say, five proposers...

NASA may be able to think of a way to disguise the $100k payments as a competition prize.  In the aerospace industry $100k will only pay for 1 person for a year.

CCDev got its first $50 million from the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009', there may be a similar Act in a couple of years time.

We have much bigger problems if we need another massive stimulus program again.

[john smith 19]

Good:  Glad we agree.  CATALYST is a good idea in principle.  If they could just authorize $100K each for, say, five proposers...

Indeed  $500k is nothing by NASA standards but for the right companies its a fortune.

Is it just me or does part of NASA seem to be shifting into a more partnership approach to development. Creating a sort of "ecosystem" of small companies (which might become large companies) to leverage their skills and staff with it's (huge) IP in devices, environment etc.

I think a key question in this would be how close could a lander place itself relative to a previous lander and how much payload (if any) would the previous lander have to sacrifice in order to enable this?

Just hypothetically a lander that can put down 500kg is pretty impressive. Now put multiple 500Kg packages within, say,  a few 100 metres of each other (ideally on wheels, but sled runners might work), along with some kind of tractor to pull them together and the capabilities don't just add, they multiply. Segmented housing, stages of an ISRU system, large single instruments.

Landing crew will likely be impossible for this but a "trucking" operation that can put xKg within y Km of a site offers the possibility of pay-as-you-go exploration rather than the "big bang" approach we've seen so far.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
No, but there aren't $60M Morpheus(i?) either. The entire program has only cost $14M since 2010.

The $14M is material costs.

Labor cost to the tax payer of the development = ~40 people * 3.5 years * $200000/person/year = ~$28M

Total $14M + $28M = ~$43M

Manufacturing cost of a Morpheus lander should be considerably less.

edit:add a 0

[Prober]

{snip}
No, but there aren't $60M Morpheus(i?) either. The entire program has only cost $14M since 2010.

The $14M is material costs.

Labor cost to the tax payer of the development = ~40 people * 3.5 years * $20000/person/year = ~$28M

Total $14M + $28M = ~$43M

Manufacturing cost of a Morpheus lander should be considerably less.

See now why a Google 50 million dollar prize might work?
 

[newpylong]

{snip}
No, but there aren't $60M Morpheus(i?) either. The entire program has only cost $14M since 2010.

The $14M is material costs.

Labor cost to the tax payer of the development = ~40 people * 3.5 years * $200000/person/year = ~$28M

Total $14M + $28M = ~$43M

Manufacturing cost of a Morpheus lander should be considerably less.

edit:add a 0

Your labor cost should be cut roughly in half. The entire team isnt (and probably no one on that team) is making 200k/yr.

Lander cost 750k to build.

[A_M_Swallow]

Your labor cost is a lot more than your wages.

[newpylong]

Yeah, that's why I said cut it in half to account for benefits, payroll taxes, indirect costs, etc. I don't know how you guys do things on that side of the pond but over here it doesn't cost $28M for 40 workers for that amount of time.

[A_M_Swallow]

Yeah, that's why I said cut it in half to account for benefits, payroll taxes, indirect costs, etc. I don't know how you guys do things on that side of the pond but over here it doesn't cost $28M for 40 workers for that amount of time.

If the organization has to pay it, it is a cost.
If the cost goes up with the number of people it is a personnel cost.

[Lar]

Yeah, that's why I said cut it in half to account for benefits, payroll taxes, indirect costs, etc. I don't know how you guys do things on that side of the pond but over here it doesn't cost $28M for 40 workers for that amount of time.

If the organization has to pay it, it is a cost.
If the cost goes up with the number of people it is a personnel cost.

This gets back to "how much does a person cost" that has been debated on other threads. Fully burdened cost of an employee is more than salary, it also includes desk space, benefits, electricity, the parking guard, etc... how much more is very debatable.

[AnalogMan]

NASA Discusses Lunar CATALYST Commercial Lunar Lander Initiative
MEDIA ADVISORY M14-023 - Jan. 24, 2014

NASA will host a media teleconference at 12:30 p.m. EST Monday, Jan. 27, to discuss the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) initiative.

Through Lunar CATALYST, announced on Jan. 16, NASA seeks proposals to partner in the development of reliable and cost-effective commercial robotic lunar lander capabilities that will enable the delivery of payloads to the lunar surface. Such capabilities could support commercial activities on the moon while enabling new science and exploration missions of interest to NASA and the larger scientific and academic communities.

Media will have an opportunity to discuss the initiative with NASA officials following an 11 a.m. pre-proposal conference call with the U.S. private sector.

Participants for the media teleconference are:

• Jason Crusan, director of Advanced Exploration Systems, NASA Headquarters
• Nantel Suzuki, Robotic Lunar Lander program executive, NASA Headquarters

For dial-in information, media should e-mail their name, affiliation and telephone number to Trent Perrotto at [email protected] by noon Monday.

The Advanced Exploration Systems Division in NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate manages Lunar CATALYST. Advanced Exploration Systems pioneers new approaches for rapidly developing prototype systems, demonstrating key capabilities and validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond Earth orbit.

For more information about Lunar CATALYST and the pre-proposal teleconference for the U.S. private sector, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst  [gives WebEx details to view presentation slides during teleconference]

Audio of the media teleconference will be streamed live on NASA's website at:

http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

[yg1968]

Here are the slides to the pre-proposal conference of today:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Lunar-CATALYST-Pre-Proposal-Conference_27Jan2014.pdf

[Elmar Moelzer]

This gets back to "how much does a person cost" that has been debated on other threads. Fully burdened cost of an employee is more than salary, it also includes desk space, benefits, electricity, the parking guard, etc... how much more is very debatable.

The parking guard is an employee also. So you cant count that guy twice. Desk Space and electricity are negligible. Benefits are between 25% and 35% of the base salary from what I have seen and paid. Some cost scales with salary, some does not. So it depends on the package provided by the employer how much it really is in the end. I believe that depending on some packages it can even go below 25%. E.g. Health Insurance does not scale with the salary and will make a smaller part of a higher salary. I think that 1.5 is a good assumption to make.

[Lar]

This gets back to "how much does a person cost" that has been debated on other threads. Fully burdened cost of an employee is more than salary, it also includes desk space, benefits, electricity, the parking guard, etc... how much more is very debatable.

The parking guard is an employee also. So you cant count that guy twice. Desk Space and electricity are negligible. Benefits are between 25% and 35% of the base salary from what I have seen and paid. Some cost scales with salary, some does not. So it depends on the package provided by the employer how much it really is in the end. I believe that depending on some packages it can even go below 25%. E.g. Health Insurance does not scale with the salary and will make a smaller part of a higher salary. I think that 1.5 is a good assumption to make.

Let's not have this debate here, we had it somewhere else already. That said, it varies a lot and is subject to all sorts of wrangling.  For example, the parking guard may be outsourced and thus not counted twice, his salary is bundled into the cost of parking the parking company charges.  The more you outsource, the higher your cost per employee (and revenue per employee) becomes.

[yg1968]

Here is the (zipped) mp3 file of the teleconference of today:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/24013384/Lunar+Robotic+Lander+Teleconference+2014-1-27.zip

P.S. There was a bit of a background hiss during the press conference. That was on their end.

[Robert Thompson]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24999-lunar-law-row-hots-up-as-nasa-enters-private-moon-rush.html#.UvKwFfZ74_I

There's a conflation or entanglement, here. Barcelona doesn't like NASA aiding U.S. groups like Moon Express that want to develop lunar capabilities, because that may give those U.S. contestants in the GLXP undue advantage. Is there any way to isolate and compartmentalize the components of aid NASA gives a U.S. lunar company from the skill set or technology base that same U.S. company brings to bear on GLPX? Should Barcelona Moon just drop it? They surely did not just have a contending superpower be the first to land on the moon in 40 years while they still have their pants down on getting their own astronauts to LEO.

[savuporo]

Came across this in the latest LEAG meeting papers :

http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2013/pdf/7053.pdf

NASA is currently receiving the RS34's from the Air Force and will be hot-fire testing a single thruster at White Sands Test Facility in November, 2014...
A pahtfinder primary structure has been designed and fabricated for initial integration and interface definition.

Seems like someone, somewhere is bending quite a bit of metal and making hot flamey stuff for RP mission NASA in house lander.

[A_M_Swallow]

Came across this in the latest LEAG meeting papers :

http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2013/pdf/7053.pdf

NASA is currently receiving the RS34's from the Air Force and will be hot-fire testing a single thruster at White Sands Test Facility in November, 2014...
A pahtfinder primary structure has been designed and fabricated for initial integration and interface definition.

Seems like someone, somewhere is bending quite a bit of metal and making hot flamey stuff for RP mission NASA in house lander.

NASA has flown the Morpheus Lander and the Mighty Eagle Lander.  There are 3 different types of Lunar CATALYST landers being developed.  Now an additional made-to-measure lander with new engines and avionics for the RESOLVE mission appears.  It is time one of them was sent to the Moon.

edit:spelling

[Garrett]

Just checked out the Lunar CATALYST webpage, and it seems like their last press release never got published here

----------------
April 30, 2014
RELEASE 14-126
NASA Selects Partners for U.S. Commercial Lander Capabilities
NASA announced Wednesday the selection of three U.S. companies to negotiate no-funds exchanged partnership agreements with the agency to advance lander capabilities that will enable delivery of payloads to the surface of the moon, as well as new science and exploration missions of interest to NASA and scientific and academic communities.
The selected companies are:
-- Astrobotic Technology, Inc., Pittsburgh
-- Masten Space Systems, Inc., Mojave, Calif.
-- Moon Express, Inc., Moffett Field, Calif.
NASA made the selections following a January solicitation for proposals. The agency now will negotiate no-funds exchanged Space Act Agreements with the companies as part of the agency's Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) initiative. NASA's contributions for an estimated three-year period may include technical expertise, access to agency test facilities, equipment loans and/or software for lander development and testing.
"NASA is making advances to push the boundaries of human exploration farther into the solar system, including to an asteroid and Mars, and continues to spur development in the commercial space sector," said Jason Crusan, director of the Advanced Exploration Systems Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Robotic missions to the moon have revealed the existence of local resources, including oxygen and water, which may be highly valuable for exploration of the solar system. The potential to use the lunar surface in partnership with our international and commercial partners may allow these resources to be characterized and used to enable future exploration and pioneering."
Commercial lunar transportation capabilities could support science and exploration objectives such as sample returns, geophysical network deployment, resource prospecting, and technology advancements.
The Advanced Exploration Systems Division of NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate manages Lunar CATALYST. Advanced Exploration Systems pioneers new approaches for rapidly developing prototype systems, demonstrating key capabilities and validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond Earth orbit.
As NASA works with U.S. industry to develop the next generation of U.S. spaceflight services, the agency also is developing the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System (SLS), a crew capsule and heavy-lift rocket to provide an entirely new capability for human exploration. Designed for launching spacecraft for crew and cargo missions, SLS and Orion will expand human presence beyond low-Earth orbit and enable new missions of exploration across the solar system, including to a near-Earth asteroid and Mars.
For more information about the Lunar CATALYST initiative, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst
-----end----

[savuporo]

These two pages provide some further presentations about the stuff that preceded and presumably lead up to CATALYST

http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2013/pdf/program.pdf
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2013/presentations/

Notice Astrobotic and Moon express there.

As for the RS-34 testing ( actually there are two engines, 11.7 kN main and 0.3kN attitude control engines, the second link gives specs )

http://www.nasa.gov/content/peacekeeper-safing-at-the-white-sands-test-facility-the-ultimate-re-use-project/
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b913f0b1a753ec4f9809a9c956ec6db3&tab=core&_cview=0

[A_M_Swallow]

Project Morpheus has a meet the press tomorrow Wednesday May 21, 2014 at KSC.  I had assumed that this was a goodbye but there may be something else going on.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20140501.html#.U3u-YHYUqSo

[Space Ghost 1962]

Imported from other thread ...

Really have to apologize for off topic here, but

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/

Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.

From "Conclusions", page 107

Building on the successful legacy of COTS, in early 2014, NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate began several initiatives to continue partnerships with the commercial space industry, including Lunar Cargo Transportation and
Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) opportunities to spur commercial cargo transportation
capabilities to the surface of the moon, and Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities (CCSC) to help
pioneer paths to Mars and other deep space destinations.

First I've hear of these. Could this mean that cargo via commercial makes it to the lunar surface cheaper/faster than humans do?

Now I see Lunar CATALYST is covered here. I see MoonX is involved. Barney Pell is ex NASA ARC and a great one for this.

[A_M_Swallow]

First I've hear of these. Could this mean that cargo via commercial makes it to the lunar surface cheaper/faster than humans do?

Now I see Lunar CATALYST is covered here. I see MoonX is involved. Barney Pell is ex NASA ARC and a great one for this.

Lunar CATALYST is weird.  The RFI had an office address at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.  It appears to have picked up the Morpheus development team from JSC and the Mighty Eagle team from MSFC and made them fly desks.  It is negotiating no-funds-exchanged Space Act Agreement (SAA) with Astrobotic Technology, Masten Space Systems and Moon Express.

http://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst/#.U45dR3YUqSo Lunar CATALYST webpage

I can not make up my mind whether NASA has:
a. decided to crawl its way back to the Moon on its finger nails by setting up a COTS to the Moon,
b. rounded up all the bad boys to prevent them doing something embarrassing like returning to the Moon,
c. both.

[QuantumG]

It's a good question, anyone have any actual insight?

[savuporo]

I can not make up my mind whether NASA has:
a. decided to crawl its way back to the Moon on its finger nails by setting up a COTS to the Moon,
b. rounded up all the bad boys to prevent them doing something embarrassing like returning to the Moon,
c. both.

I think its a bit of both and more. Lunar Quest got completely zeroed out from the budgets, but there were multiple groups actively working on various lunar surface missions. So they have tried to carry on their efforts under various funding lines and now trying to bring some of these groups together as a more unified front - but they still have to scrape by.
Inching ever closer to the GLXP teams that have actual hardware is basically an attempt to make that shaky front a little bit more solid. Also maybe a honest attempt to help these teams a bit further if at all possible.

Who exactly will hitch a ride with who is entirely unclear, and who will pay for it all is even more unclear.

[A_M_Swallow]

On October 1, 2015 Moon Express announced Oct. 1 that it is buying three launches for its lunar lander spacecraft from Rocket Lab. Two of the launches are due to take place in 2017. Moon Express plans to send to the moon smaller versions of its MX-1 lunar lander.

http://spacenews.com/moon-express-buys-rocket-lab-launches-for-lunar-missions/#sthash.QhoTQwNN.dpuf

[Prober]

Saw someone do a lander, one of the best designs seen a long while...


saw the pic and lost it....it lands then an army tank like rover comes out

[Prober]

Someone did a AIAA Paper sometime ago took the x37 for lunar operations.... Boeing run with it

[A_M_Swallow]

Saw someone do a lander, one of the best designs seen a long while...


saw the pic and lost it....it lands then an army tank like rover comes out

Astrobotic put this video about their lander out in 2014.

[Prober]

Saw someone do a lander, one of the best designs seen a long while...


saw the pic and lost it....it lands then an army tank like rover comes out

Astrobotic put this video about their lander out in 2014.

maybe, still looks different than this pic somehow

[A_M_Swallow]

maybe, still looks different than this pic somehow

The photograph is the P2 prototype from Carnegie Mellon University.
http://lunar.cs.cmu.edu/about-us/#heritage

Their latest rover is the Andy Rover.
http://lunar.cs.cmu.edu/andy/#andy-banner