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

[C3PO]

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.

True, it will take time and money. And most importantly a marked.

But it will probably be cheaper than a space elevator.

 

[T.Neo]

Noone invoked space elevators. In any case, the primary issue is not project cost, but cost per kilogram of propellant produced. And lunar propellant may well cost more than that delivered by a space elevator- or by conventional launch vehicles, given enough of a market.

 

[C3PO]

In any case, the primary issue is not project cost, but cost per kilogram of propellant produced.

The cost of fuel at a E/M L2 depot will be 99.99999% launch cost, if it was produced on Earth.
Just ask Richard Garriott what he paid NASA for that ice cube on board ISS. AFAIK the production cost of an ice cube isn't that high.

 

[fausto]

This lunar landing mission concept is similar to FOI Arcturus program outlined one year ago at least! :blink:

 

[boogabooga]

FOI tends to be ahead of the curve in vision, even compared to professionals. I've said so much before in your threads.

I realized this much more when I saw there were real life studies into using liquid F-1 boosters (pretty much FOI patented) for the SLS.

 

[T.Neo]

AFAIK the production cost of an ice cube isn't that high.

This is not as simple as putting an ice cube tray in a freezer for a few hours. This is essentially a mining operation on the Moon. It's unreasonable to assume that an unprecedented industrial activity in an extreme environment distant from large amounts of other infrastructure will have a trivial cost.

Heck, I can pick up some regolith in my garden for free. Lunar rocks, of course, are far more expensive.

 

[C3PO]

This is essentially a mining operation on the Moon. It's unreasonable to assume that an unprecedented industrial activity in an extreme environment distant from large amounts of other infrastructure will have a trivial cost.

You need to read more carefully!

The cost of fuel at a E/M L2 depot will be 99.99999% launch cost, if it was produced on Earth.

Of course production on the Lunar surface will not be trivial. No one here has claimed that. In fact i said the exact opposite. I was simply pointing out that a large part the value of off-Earth resources is that they don't have to be launched into Earth orbit. We are many decades away from bringing stuff to Earth for a profit.

Anyway, this is now so off-topic since we found out that this project will NOT be refueled at an orbital depot.

 

[T.Neo]

I was simply pointing out that a large part the value of off-Earth resources is that they don't have to be launched into Earth orbit.

I was simply pointing out that the cost advantage of not needing to launch out of Earth's gravity well may be nullified by the greater costs of operating industry in space. The in-space propellant market is quite a different ballgame to say, shipping lunar ice to a planet that is covered with water.

Anyway, this is now so off-topic since we found out that this project will NOT be refueled at an orbital depot.

Good point.

 

[RGClark]

Golden Spike Co. needs to develop a lander and new spacesuit designs. I hope finally they will develop the counter pressure suit:

Dava Newman: Aerospace Engineer.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/secretlife/scientists/dava-newman/

These suits are especially useful in regards to flexibility in doing work on planetary surfaces such as the Moon or Mars.
Plus they would look so much cooler on some astronauts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-space-station-expedition-23-in-pictures.html

But not for, say, Newt Gingrich, visiting a Moon base ...


Bob Clark

 

[Mader Levap]

For me, Golden Spike is only noth lower than Mars One on BS scale. I will believe when I will see it (read: never).

 

[T.Neo]

For me, Golden Spike is only noth lower than Mars One on BS scale. I will believe when I will see it (read: never).

I agree that a healthy level of skepticism is a good idea when regarding announcements like these, but comparing Golden Spike to Mars One is pretty insulting to the former. Mars One will never, ever come to fruition. At all. Ever. At least not in a manner remotely similar to the plan outlined in the Mars One promotional statements. A Golden Spike Moon landing, on the other hand, is simply unlikely to come to fruition...

 

[RGClark]

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

Reading the paper now. It gives several different architectures and types of missions. But on page 8 it gives the payload capability of the Falcon 9, presumably the new version, as 16,700 kg. However, on the SpaceX site it's given as 13,100 kg:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php#launch_and_placement

Interestingly at the 16 mT number you can do a manned circumlunar mission on a single Falcon 9 + Dragon, even including a LAS, by using a half-size Centaur as the in-space stage. But at the 13 mt number it becomes much more iffy.

Bob Clark

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Get Your First Look at Golden Spike’s Lunar Lander:

REDONDO BEACH, Calif., May 8, 2013 (NGC PR) – Northrop Grumman Corporation has completed a feasibility study for a new commercial lunar lander for the Golden Spike Company (GSC). The study confirmed the viability of lander concepts for Golden Spike’s human lunar expedition architecture and conceived a novel new, low-mass ascent stage concept dubbed “Pumpkin.”

{...}

 

[orb]

NASASpaceflight: Golden Spike promote lunar sample return options:

The Golden Spike company have revealed interest in conducting lunar missions that combine robotic landers with human expeditions to the Moon. The company recently hosted a workshop with an international audience of scientists, focusing on landing sites, sample returns, and aspirations of the international lunar scientific community.

{...}

 

[francisdrake]

That's an interesting topic. I guess using existing (or near future) hardware as far as possible would be the most economical way for manned lunar expeditions, if anybody would intend to go there. In their documentation only the extra Centaur tank and the moon lander itself seem to be really new, aside from various interstages and adaptors.

As a little exercise I took their Northrop lander concept and tried to combine it with features from the original posted pictures, keeping the cool looking helicopter-like cockpit: