Discussion Thread for Golden Spike and commercial lunar exploration in general

[Danderman]

This is the thread where you can discuss where Golden Spike's investors should spend their money.

[Robotbeat]

I think Golden Spike's investors should be waiting on RLVs, perhaps negotiating with SpaceX about getting an extremely good deal on lots of Falcon 9R flights or something along those lines.

...SpaceX intends to offer $5-7 million flights? Call them on it. Ask for 20 of them for $150 million total (about what it'd take for a single Ariane V or Atlas V flight). Or if we're talking partial reusability, offer them $150 million for 7 flights or something like that.

...and do the same thing with other players, like Blue Origin or XCOR or Skylon or whoever else (maybe Lockheed and their flyback, reusable first stage vehicle).

RLVs offer such a great opportunity for making commercial exploitation of space possible, but there's sort of a catch-22 since they /require/ that extra demand to really be worth it. So by making them an offer for a whole bunch of flights (and credibly asserting your demand wouldn't be there with expendable prices), you're giving incentive to help develop the capability.

[clongton]

...SpaceX intends to offer $5-7 million flights? Call them on it. Ask for 20 of them for $150 million total (about what it'd take for a single Ariane V or Atlas V flight). Or if we're talking partial reusability, offer them $150 million for 7 flights or something like that.

Golden Spike does not have those kinds of finances to even think about making such an offer.

[Robotbeat]

...SpaceX intends to offer $5-7 million flights? Call them on it. Ask for 20 of them for $150 million total (about what it'd take for a single Ariane V or Atlas V flight). Or if we're talking partial reusability, offer them $150 million for 7 flights or something like that.

Golden Spike does not have those kinds of finances to even think about making such an offer.

But supposing they did have enough money to buy an Atlas V flight (which, conceivably, could be enough to put a small lander in high, elliptical lunar orbit), that was what I'd suggest for them to do with the money instead.

[JohnFornaro]

...SpaceX intends to offer $5-7 million flights? Call them on it. Ask for 20 of them for $150 million total (about what it'd take for a single Ariane V or Atlas V flight). Or if we're talking partial reusability, offer them $150 million for 7 flights or something like that.

Golden Spike does not have those kinds of finances to even think about making such an offer.

But supposing they did have enough money to buy an Atlas V flight (which, conceivably, could be enough to put a small lander in high, elliptical lunar orbit), that was what I'd suggest for them to do with the money instead.

Suppose I had those kinds of finances?  Not sure of the pragmatic utility of your proposed suppostition.

[Lurker Steve]

...SpaceX intends to offer $5-7 million flights? Call them on it. Ask for 20 of them for $150 million total (about what it'd take for a single Ariane V or Atlas V flight). Or if we're talking partial reusability, offer them $150 million for 7 flights or something like that.

Golden Spike does not have those kinds of finances to even think about making such an offer.

They might have that much funding before SpaceX makes flights available for 7 million each.
The initial deposit is fairly low, and neither SpaceX or Golden Spike will be ready to launch anytime soon.

[clongton]

...SpaceX intends to offer $5-7 million flights? Call them on it. Ask for 20 of them for $150 million total (about what it'd take for a single Ariane V or Atlas V flight). Or if we're talking partial reusability, offer them $150 million for 7 flights or something like that.

Golden Spike does not have those kinds of finances to even think about making such an offer.

They might have that much funding before SpaceX makes flights available for 7 million each.
The initial deposit is fairly low, and neither SpaceX or Golden Spike will be ready to launch anytime soon.

Funny

[Mader Levap]

They might have that much funding before SpaceX makes flights available for 7 million each.
The initial deposit is fairly low, and neither SpaceX or Golden Spike will be ready to launch anytime soon.

Funny

What is funny? Assumption that SpaceX will not launch anything for 7mln$ any time soon?

[Robert Thompson]

I'd like GS to just go radio quiet on claims of a vast unseen army of sovereign nation space agencies interested in spending money outside their own pork/aerospace infrastructure capabilities, and focus on how to do sample return. Exceed the quality of presently available lunar samples and lunar meteorite falls. Small, small landers, small, small rovers, telerobotic sample selection, return stage. How much science can one university/planetary science institute get out of a small mass of sample, and then how many such organizations could pool together their grant money, and can any such dream team hit the price GS is talking about. Presently, of course, no. But lunar sample demand exists and will persist even after choice sample return, because the questions always get finer. GS should leverage their higher-than-GLXP technical base to do harder-than-GLXP things. Borrowing the axiom (I think PRI has used it) of photons, electrons, neutrons, GS could eventually offer services analogous to an LEO selfie. PRI could offer HLO, LLO selfies on their own for that matter. Combine a PRI focus with a GLPX rule set with GS NASA alumni skillset. Selfie rover, showing your gob with Apollo 11 in the background (wherever the exclusion zone is), for a very basic telerobotic sight-seeing capability. You will eventually get thrill seekers who are compelled to experience with their own senses what others are satisfied to vicariously flip through digitally. 30+ years. Maybe 20.

[JohnFornaro]

This trio of posts repasted here from the GS News updates thread:

Aristarcus, on the other hand, is a large volcanic province with a diversity of surface compositions. If you are actually interested in understanding the history of Moon, it would be the best place to build a lunar base. Plus, it's on the nearside and not too high latitude, so much more practical than the poles.

@simonbp,

Not particularly significant, but Arthur C Clarke suggested in 2061 - Odyssey Three that Aristacus was the best place for a base too. He seemed to think it was also a good place to depot water and manufactured propellent.

Not much news to report then.  Nothing happening here, move along, move along.

Ben:  About Aristarchus:  Where does the water come from?

General question:  What would be the best thread to continue a discussion of the merits of the GX proposal along with the merits of the chosen site?

Totally excellent phraseology: "spend their opinion".

[Phil Stooke]

Oh dear.

Aristarchus is an impact crater.  The Aristarchus plateau is the volcanic province, fascinating in its own right, but it won't reveal the history of the Moon - for that you need dedicated sorties to many places.  It has been described as a good place to build a base on the argument that its pyroclastics may contain water, ilmenite and other resources, but it lacks the polar combination of volatiles in shadows and enhanced illumination in high spots.  More than one outpost may be needed, each with its own special characteristics.

2061 is a novel.  Clarke doesn't do landing site studies and his geology is at least a decade out of date for obvious reasons.  So not a useful source.

And to delve further back in this thread, suggesting GS give up its thoughts about human landings and concentrate on robotic sample return ... is missing the point.  Those robotic commercial missions are Moon Express or Astrobotic goals.  GS is only about human missions (albeit with robotic assistance as in the Honeybee study). 

Then we have talk of which rocket to use.  Let me look at my notes from the GS workshop in Houston last fall...

The original plan was for four launches per mission.  Stern said:

Atlas 5 puts a fueled Centaur onto LEO.
Falcon 9 puts the lunar lander into orbit.  They dock, burn and go to lunar orbit.

Atlas 5 puts fueled Centaur in LEO.
Falcon 9 puts crewed Dragon on orbit.  They dock, burn and go to lunar orbit. Dock with lander, land, return, Dragon returns to landing.

But a new study suggests a Falcon Heavy can do it in 2 launches:

2 Falcon Heavy launches, one puts lander in lunar orbit, one puts crewed Dragon in lunar orbit. Land, return as before.

And in response, an upgraded Atlas 5 was proposed by its promoters as capable of the same architecture.  The new small lander designed by Northrop Grumman makes the landing feasible with all these architectures.  And these is another lander concept in the works.  2014 is still in the design stage with further improvements to be expected. 

You don't have to worry about the cost.  Saying GS doesn't have the money for a (name your rocket) misses the point.  The client would pay for the hardware.  $1.5 Billion covers the hardware and operations with a margin for investor return.  Stern now says that cost can come down with input from media rights and so on.  Also, customers can buy a whole mission, or half a mission, or a 3- or 6-pack of missions, lots of options.  Many sites or return to one site to build up infrastructure.  Human-tend robotic installations by other commercial entities.  You may not believe there are customers ready to pay but that's a marketing issue, not a 'can't afford an Atlas 5' issue.

If you think I'm wrong - I am not offering these opinions.  I'm reporting them.  You think Falcon Heavy can't get a crewed Dragon to lunar orbit?  The studies say they can.  And so on.

So how about some constructive conversations about what can be done rather than what can't?  How would you use this capability?  What are your goals?  What synergies would improve capability?

Phil

[MikeAtkinson]

If you think I'm wrong - I am not offering these opinions.  I'm reporting them.  You think Falcon Heavy can't get a crewed Dragon to lunar orbit?  The studies say they can.  And so on.

Can you supply a link to these studies?