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

[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.