$10 billion rather than $104 billion to go to the moon?

[askold]

SpaceDev: A newly released study has focused on how best to return people to the Moon, reporting that future lunar missions can be done for under $10 billion - far less than a NASA price tag. <br /><br />The multi-phased three-year study was done by a private space firm, SpaceDev of Poway, California, and concluded that safe, lower cost missions can be completed by the private sector using existing technology or innovative new technology expected to be available in time to support human exploration of the Moon in the near-future. <br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/051121_spacedev.html<br /><br />I say - give them the contract.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

More pie in the sky BS from a company that is trying to lure investors.<br />

 

[nacnud]

Well the $104B includes finnishing the ISS, retiering the STS building the new vehicles etc. Once done a Moon mission should cost less than $2B, possibly much less.

 

[askold]

NASA can go to the moon for less than $2B - this sounds like typical NASA accounting.<br /><br />If you don't include almost everything that it takes to go to the moon (like build the vehicles), then what's left is pretty cheap. What's that? Snacks and Tang?

 

[enricofermi]

You've got to respect them for attempting to make space interesting again rather than just repeating what was done last time. Also, those black and white images from Titan just didn't cut it. <br /><br />The rocket chair idea is a little bit insane of a way to land, forunately not the only option, but I can see the point for using it over a rover or as a backup system in case the lander fails. Either way, it's one of the first to actually attempt what had been visualized by the public the first go around. And it's not boring.

 

[nacnud]

Nope that includes the cost of the vehicles just not the development. <br /><br />What I was thinking on reducing the cost further would be to allow the development of a commercial LEO fuel depot.

 

[gawin]

I dont buy that in the least. NASA spent 2B just to redesign the ET that still failed. no way NASA can go for 2B.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">More pie in the sky BS from a company that is trying to lure investors. </font><br /><br />Um, Dobbins, that reads as a very knee-jerk reaction. Have you heard of SpaceDev before? Are you aware of their track record? Did you bother to check out the report or SpaceDev in general before you unleashed your trash talk? Jim Bensen deserves better from a self-proclaimed fellow space professional who is more interested in logistics than missions.<br /><br />I'm not saying anything here about the worthiness of the study, I'm just saying that you come across as pretty close-minded for a guy who demands that all the space plane folks see things his way.<br /><br />Even with all your knowledge and opinions with which I agree, you're still on my Troll Watch List.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yree]

Benson Interview 11.21.2005<br />http://rocketsaway.net/audio/Jim_Benson/benson_ra_interview_11212005.mp3<br />http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage_article.php?pid=546

 

[dobbins]

I'm tired of all the talk from the alt.space crowd with no results. For years I've heard about the cheap spaceflights that are just around the corner from the private market, and I haven't seen squat yet.<br /><br />Actions speak louder than words, I want to see some action instead of more promises. I want to see them actually start putting payloads in orbit, and make the profits they need to make to remain in business.<br /><br />No one will be more delighted than I will be if these people actually deliver on their promises, but so far all I have seen is a lot of talk.<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

Well I'm sorry that you're burnt out on waiting for private space flight. But does that earn you the privilege of trash talking someone who has done more to lay the necessary foundation for alt.space to finally get over the hump than you ever will? I say NO it does not.<br /><br />From my point of view, Mr. Bensen could stop RIGHT NOW and still have earned more respect than you've shown him.<br /><br />And I can tell you that if we're going to have a contest to see who is more delighted when alt.space succeeds, you will find yourself behind those of us who weren't so negative when the chips were down.<br /><br />I am very much a 'results speak louder than words' kind of guy, but SpaceDev *has* some results, and the nature of the business they are in is such that they HAVE to talk about things before they can do them. So why don't you cut them some slack and click on a link and offer something more substantive than borderline libel?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[enricofermi]

The SpaceX launch is in a matter of days. I'd say that is doing something.<br /><br />What's NASA doing, rock hunting?<br /><br />certainly spending money<br /><br />One of these companies is going to succeed, and if they spark the smallest bit of interest in the public's eyes again, they have my respect. We'll see. Isn't it at least worth a shot?

 

[yree]

<br />"'m tired of all the talk from the alt.space crowd with no results. For years I've heard about the cheap spaceflights that are just around the corner from the private market, and I haven't seen squat yet.<br /><br />Actions speak louder than words, I want to see some action instead of more promises. I want to see them actually start putting payloads in orbit, and make the profits they need to make to remain in business.<br /><br />No one will be more delighted than I will be if these people actually deliver on their promises, but so far all I have seen is a lot of talk."<br />http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage3.php?pid=287&subNav=11&subSel=3<br /><br /> <br />SpaceShipOne: History’s First Private Manned Space Program<br />On the morning of June 21st., 2004, Scaled Composites pilot Mike Melvill climbed aboard SpaceShipOne and reached space making him the world's first private, commercial astronaut pilot. Powered by SpaceDev's hybrid rocket technology, SpaceShipOne soared to 328,491 feet. This history-making event was witnessed, in person, by thousands of spectators and shared by millions around the world via radio, television and the Internet. <br />You can view a compilation video tribute of SpaceDev's contribution in this momentous event by clicking here. Windows Media 256 Kbps<br />http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage3_article.php?pid=411&subNav=11&subSel=3<br />SpaceDev says it has agreed to buy Starsys <br />http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20051027-9999-1b27spacedev.html<br />PS DS

 

[dobbins]

Cut them some slack?<br /><br />Last week they were pushing a space plane they don't have the money to build, and now they are going to fly it to the Moon?<br /><br />They are out of slack, it's time for action.<br /><br />I'm tired of words from these start-ups, and even tireder of hearing alt.space fans talk like these companies have done something they haven't managed to do, actually deliver on the promises. I'm tired of promises that get grander and grander, all that does is set off the BS detector.<br /><br />Like the old ad said "Where's the Beef?"<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Well as for the Moon study SpaceDev were awarded a contract for the study from Lunar Enterprise Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Age Publishing CompanyLink. This isn't an in house study but a commissioned work.

 

[dobbins]

If the SpaceX launch succeeds I'll drink a toast to them, and I very rarely drink.<br /><br />However a success on the least ambitious part of SpaceX's promises has exactly zilch to do with the promises made by SpaceDev.<br /><br />Let's see SpaceDev get a 1 gram washer into orbit before they start talking about flying space planes to the Moon.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">More pie in the sky BS from a company that is trying to lure investors.</font>/i><br /><br />It is certainly that, but there is some belief that the plan could work within an order of magnitude (e.g., perhaps $20B). Here are some of the differences that I can gleam from the plan which could reduce the proposed cost:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">First,</font>this plan does not include completing, using, and servicing ISS. That is probably $30-40B right away from NASA.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Second,</font>don't build the HLV. Instead use mission profiles that take advantage of existing MLVs. In general, each mission would involve much smaller amount of mass. Avoiding the ISS and HLV saves a lot of money.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Third,</font>don't return directly to Earth, enter LEO first. This is similar to the t/Space plan. The LEO to Earth surface vehicle doesn't need to be over-engineered to support Beyond LEO reentry velocities. Once again, this also plays into the lack of need for an HLV.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Fourth,</font>deliver small amounts of mass to the Lunar surface for each sortie. Did you see the "Lawn chair to the Moon" vehicles? Pretty neat, and what a ride it would be. Smaller mass means less need for HLV development. The NASA ESAS LSAM can carry 2.2 metric tons of equipment to the Lunar surface (~10 times the amount the Apollo lander could) and in a cargo-only version it can deliver 21 tons to the Lunar surface!<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Fifth,</font>optimize for the Moon. The SpaceDev plan is optimized on getting small amounts of mass to the Moon quickly. The ESAS architecture is driven by a Mars capability -- for which the HLV would play a critical role.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Sixth,</font>increase crew risk. For example, when landing on the Moon the NASA ESAS way, you have both the LSAM pro</i>

 

[enricofermi]

They are announcing plans, first because it was a contract with a company who requested it, and secondly because NASA is soliciting proposals for ideas like these right now (from companies that don't yet have funding). Just because they are small doesn't mean their ideas hold less merit.<br /><br />Regardless of who they are, it takes money to develop these ideas, and in order to get money they have to be very open about what they are developing, especially as a public company. Part of the mission of this company is to reinvigorate the space program. Taking a bold approach, which is actually fairly risky, isn't a pie in the sky.<br /><br />Lastly, there is beef in this company. They have developed satellites, rockets, and obviously components of private space flight. Their engineers are some of the same ones that left NASA for more lucrative ideas. This bold "pie in the sky" approach is more along the lines of what they thought space should be, and that's why they now work for SpaceDev not NASA. <br /><br />You have to dream first before making your dreams come true.

 

[nacnud]

Here is an animation of the mission archetecture. I'm sure you'll love it <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

Good analysis, thanks <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Something like this might be able to let NASA concentrate on going to Mars rather than resupplying its Moon base in a similar way to how current alt.space plans will hopefully help out with ISS resupply.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

I don't know SpaceDev plan details... if it can work... or if "private" can do it... but I'm SURE that VSE is the MOST EXPENSIVE way to go on the moon (with 99% of moon hardware expendable) and that, with different "smarter" plans, NASA can save up to $50 billion, leaving funds for MUCH MORE, MUCH SERIOUS and MUCH BETTER space projects!!!!<br /><br />VSE is like a "money-incinerator" that may put NASA to bankrupt!<br />

 

[spacefire]

quite interesting...they keep the capsule-lifeboat as an integral part of the ferry. I'd like to see a larger portion of the ferry reused-engines too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[enricofermi]

In many ways, isn't it actually less risky (besides just the hybrids). <br /><br />Rather than taking one craft to the surface that could fail as it almost did with Apollo, you have several. And given recent computer advances, landing and rendezvous (especially by 2015) would be automated and really not too difficult. We are doing similar operations now with satellites and other bodies. The only task would involve the user selecting the location on the surface and the craft could do the rest. If necessary, a backup module could be called down to the surface, and as stated these craft could be used to propel the entire entity back to Earth orbit. <br /><br />It's interesting to say the least. The Bigelow capsules were what I was looking for with the NASA project but instead, well that's another busy thread or two...

 

[krrr]

<font color="yellow"><font color="orange">Third</font> don't return directly to Earth, enter LEO first. This is similar to the t/Space plan. The LEO to Earth surface vehicle doesn't need to be over-engineered to support Beyond LEO reentry velocities.</font><br /><br />Moon-to-LEO means killing 3200 m/s. Don't tell me you want to do that with chemical propulsion. Only choice is aerocapture, which is difficult. Moon-to-Earth surface is actually easy, see Apollo or Zond.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><font color="orange">Sixth</font> increase crew risk.</font><br /><br />This is really beyond the pale<img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" />. You want to have every fifth or so lunar expedition killed. On the contrary, I think there should be bailout options even during the most critical parts of an expedition, e.g. lunar ascent.

 

[nacnud]

Yep space dev proposes areocapture<br /><br />