News Wanna go the Moon on a shoestring? Try Golden Spike!

[Cosmic Penguin]

You can now order a seat on a manned lunar lander to the Moon for flights starting around 2020 right now - at a price of just $750 million! :banana:

NASASpaceflight.com: Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

The Washington Post: Golden Spike space-tourism company: ‘To the moon!’

 

[T.Neo]

'Just' $750 million? Are there enough people on Earth willing to part with that sort of cash for a trip to the Moon to build up an actual business case?

In any case, 'lunar mission built upon existing hardware' sounds like a really exciting prospect. Likelihood aside, it would be really funny if a commercial company beat NASA to the Moon using a more 'pragmatic' approach..

 

[orb]

 

[dougkeenan]

No add-on?

 

[mojoey]

I don't think Donamy has seen the thread yet...give it about a month. The guy is an addon machine.

 

[ADSWNJ]

Go for it guys. Phenomenal to think that there is a commercial business case for it and people are willing to risk capital on this. I would love to see a commercial space tourism business thrive here.

 

[RGClark]

I don't get this:

Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions.
December 6th, 2012 by Chris Bergin

“Golden Spike’s basic lunar mission architecture requires two launches of two sets existing launch vehicles for each surface expedition. The first pair of launches allows us to pre-position a lander in low lunar orbit. The second pair of launches then sends a crew vehicle with two people in it – the expedition crew – to meet the lander in lunar orbit,” Mr Stern added in the company’s materials.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/12/golden-spike-phase-a-commercial-lunar-landing-missions/

What's the benefit of connecting the crew module with the lander in lunar orbit? Why not just do it in Earth orbit?


Bob Clark

 

[MattBaker]

Well, if you have the CM+Lander from LEO on it has a big weight (for example Apollo, CM+Lander=45 mT). So you need a lot of Delta-V to put it into a Trans-Lunar trajectory AND a lot of Delta-V to break this 45 mT-stack to orbital velocity once you arrive at the moon.
But when you launch them seperatly you need less power (but more upper stages).
And since it is more expensive to build huge rockets or upper stages (especially R&D-costs) than build two or three 'normal' rockets (already flown today) commercial spaceflight companies often presents this option. (Comparable to one SLS vs three or four Delta IVs)

Of course you have other problems, what would have happened to Apollo 13 without a lunar module is the most commonly mentioned one...

 

[Pipcard]

SLS also seems to have a "launch a lander to lunar orbit, then launch the crew there and have them rendezvous in lunar orbit" plan, although on a much bigger scale.

edit: I was talking about the proposed plan.

 

[RGClark]

Well, if you have the CM+Lander from LEO on it has a big weight (for example Apollo, CM+Lander=45 mT). So you need a lot of Delta-V to put it into a Trans-Lunar trajectory AND a lot of Delta-V to break this 45 mT-stack to orbital velocity once you arrive at the moon.
But when you launch them seperatly you need less power (but more upper stages).
And since it is more expensive to build huge rockets or upper stages (especially R&D-costs) than build two or three 'normal' rockets (already flown today) commercial spaceflight companies often presents this option. (Comparable to one SLS vs three or four Delta IVs)
Of course you have other problems, what would have happened to Apollo 13 without a lunar module is the most commonly mentioned one...

Apparently you're right. See the image below. You could have instead the stages link up in Earth orbit to form the larger rocket, but it is simpler for just a lander to dock with a capsule.
I do still prefer the Early Lunar Access proposal that could be done for about the same mass to LEO:

Lunar Base Studies in the 1990s.
1993: Early Lunar Access (ELA)
by Marcus Lindroos
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html


Bob Clark

 

[Pipcard]

Apparently you're right. See the image below. You could have instead the stages link up in Earth orbit to form the larger rocket, but it is simpler for just a lander to dock with a capsule.
I do still prefer the Early Lunar Access proposal that could be done for about the same mass to LEO:

Lunar Base Studies in the 1990s.
1993: Early Lunar Access (ELA)
by Marcus Lindroos
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html


Bob Clark

So how would the LTV be refueled?

 

[RGClark]

So how would the LTV be refueled?

Perhaps the refueling part would come from the vehicle being reusable. Then it would be refueled from propellant depots.


Bob Clark

 

[Izack]

So...yet another competing space capsule that has to be researched and developed? Does anyone collaborate these days?

 

[C3PO]

Perhaps the refueling part would come from the vehicle being reusable. Then it would be refueled from propellant depots.

I wouldn't call propellant depots "existing hardware".

However, I do like the plan to separate the different segments of the trip. Building a ginormous contraption that can accomplish the whole mission in a single launch is just too expensive, and will IMHO never be repeated successfully. On-orbit rendezvous is so much easier/safe now then it was in the 60's and 70's.

Reusability of on-orbit craft on a large scale will probably not happen until we get off-Earth propellant production. So we have a bit of a chicken&egg-problem.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

For a description of their detailed lunar launch architecture, see this paper: http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

 

[T.Neo]

Are they going to develop their own capsule or is the vehicle in the graphics just a notional placeholder for whatever competitor they choose for the actual flight plan?

 

[RGClark]

I wouldn't call propellant depots "existing hardware".
However, I do like the plan to separate the different segments of the trip. Building a ginormous contraption that can accomplish the whole mission in a single launch is just too expensive, and will IMHO never be repeated successfully. On-orbit rendezvous is so much easier/safe now then it was in the 60's and 70's.
Reusability of on-orbit craft on a large scale will probably not happen until we get off-Earth propellant production. So we have a bit of a chicken&egg-problem.

Ah, by having low cost flights to the Moon means we can set up such propellant stations on the Moon derived from the abundant ice now known to exist there.


Bob Clark

 

[C3PO]

Ah, by having low cost flights to the Moon means we can set up such propellant stations on the Moon derived from the abundant ice now known to exist there.

And you can get it to E/M L2 with ~2km/s instead of ~11km/s

But this LTV isn't reusable. It's a Centaur stage with a drop tank for payload. Once in LEO it will transfer the fuel from the drop tank, and .... ehr ... drop it :lol: Then it will rendezvous with the actual payload in LEO, and then do the TLI.

 

[T.Neo]

And you can get it to E/M L2 with ~2km/s instead of ~11km/s

If you collect it, and melt it, and electrolyse it, condense the resultant gases into cryogenic form, and then launch it. The challenge of those industrial requirements are not to be underestimated.

 

[RGClark]

And you can get it to E/M L2 with ~2km/s instead of ~11km/s

But this LTV isn't reusable. It's a Centaur stage with a drop tank for payload. Once in LEO it will transfer the fuel from the drop tank, and .... ehr ... drop it :lol: Then it will rendezvous with the actual payload in LEO, and then do the TLI.

As I said I prefer the Early Lunar Access architecture.

Bob Clark