I think the key takeaway, and the part I really like, is that this plan gets people there and then starts getting data about what works and what doesn’t. A lot of discussion in these comments is still getting stuck on the details, and missing the really good essence of the plan:

Have quick version 1.0, and iterate from there. Get feedback, get results, get data from which to improve it. I think that’s the biggest and most important selling point. If we stop trying to over-engineer the idea and just think about what is the simplest and fastest functional landing that meets user needs (users are the ones paying, rather than the ones landing), then you start getting useful information about how to live on the moon, which we sorely lack. Forget all the other details, about how many people or how long the stay is, and just wrap our heads around the design philosophy of “iterate fast and early,” I think you’ve got the key to *discovering* the best results. That’s opposed to engineering what you think are the best results and discovering that you made an awesome moon base and then discovering it doesn’t actually do what you need.

What’s your take on the several other issues I mentioned?

JF

I’m not disagreeing with us having commercial launch capabilities here in the US–we already have them. I just don’t think you’re going to get major international partners to pay for a flight on someone else’s booster if they have their own that can do the job. Remember, the value proposition here is that not only do they get a way to deliver payloads to the Moon and get some surface time without having to do the up front development cost. They not only get that, but they also get the benefit that all of *their costs* are spent in their own country employing their own people, and increasing the flight rate of their own launchers. Not to mention that the cost to foreign governments of their own launchers are probably going to be cheaper than even SpaceX launches in many cases. Governments just don’t like buying flights from someone else if they have a domestic service available.

Not to mention, if they’re paying money to a foreign launch company (a US one in this case) for the launch, I doubt they’d be willing to let you sell the remaining space on the launch. Fundamentally, this concept probably only works if the foreign companies can barter their launch in exchange for the services you’re providing.

Trying to get foreign governments to buy launches on American boosters on a recurring basis like that is probably a much bigger roadblock than just working through ITAR. Remember, people work through ITAR all the time. It’s annoying, but especially when it’s something that isn’t explicitly a weapon, getting approvals is just lawyer work.

~Jon

My point is, just make the lander and launch it domestically. This would suggest that the international customers come here for their launches. It also presupposes commercial abilities here, which I think we’re on the verge of achieving. Are these two things bigger roadblocks than ITAR? How so?

For the thought experiment, let’s suppose that particular question has been answered for the moment. So then, about the biz plan. Who is first to the plate? The billionaire angel, the small countries, the consortium of business entities? The first will have control issues, the second pride and barter issues, and the third profit issues.

I like your idea in principle, that short loading the first vehicle could product income on the first flight. The two obstacles here are your suppostition of a $250M first flight, and your lack of supposition of what 100kG payload could possibly be worth that price. Pre-arranging launches seems only feasible only after the first launch in any optimistic case. I think that at least the first four launches will have to be paid for with cash, about $1B, then. The developmental costs, which will not be constrained by artificially induced political processes, will still be substantial. I think you should write, in pencil, on the envelope, $6B for this.

Maybe you could throw in a few more cost numbers, because it seems like developmental costs are under-represented.

I agree about a polar landing. Accept that you can’t close the life support loops, and work to minimize the launched mass necessary to plug these leaks. If you get to a point where all you have to launch is water, that would be pretty good, I think. Over time, the loops will be closed by empirical experimentation on site, and in conjunction with Earth experts.

In any case, the initial landings should certainly provide abort to ISS capabilities, so I think that possibility needs to be covered in the original scheme. What if the original participants want to come home? The contractural language that forces them to stay will be interesting to read, because the longevity of their stay, with no escape possible, may induce destructive behavior and cause the mission to fail. There should be an escape mechanism designed such that the mission can continue if the post is temporarily abandoned. This then means that there are additional developmental costs in the backup crew. Further, there are differing psychologies of “following orders” in the military and civilian personell markets that need to be addressed.

I believe that if the biz plan includes appropriately scaled depots that it may be more feasible.

Keep talkin’.

A single early return ascent stage may be adequate. As to whether the fuel needs to be on the Moon or could be in orbit is an interesting question.

If the village’s job is mining liquid oxygen or a propellant like magnesium then regular cargo liftoffs will be needed. A village that does not trade will have to be self financed.

6-Not sure there is much. The landers at least could be based on VTVL suborbital vehicle technology. Some of the parts would be rearranged differently, and you’d have some subsystems on a lander you wouldn’t need for a VTVL vehicle, but there’s probably enough overlap to get some help there. As for the habitats and other systems…I’m really not sure how much overlap there is.

I’m semi-ambivalent about sinking a bunch of time into refining a business plan for something like this. It’s pretty clear that you probably can’t bootstrap your way to making this work without someone providing a very large chunk of cash up front. I’m not sure how much a typical business plan is going to do when you need someone to sink $50-100M into it.

~Jon

If I understand you correctly, you are advocating:
1. Multiple space agencies pay initial and ongoing launch costs
2. Billionaire fund new company for landers, habitats, astronauts, ground stations development and operations costs
3. Markets for experiments, astronauts (that don’t mind going one way) from multiple nations and corporations.

Your idea makes me ask:
1. How do we handle the radiation risks to settlers with their stays on the lunar surface being measured in years and not weeks or months: http://commercialspacegateway.com/item/27803-spacefaring-our-real-prospects-for-homesteading
2. You discuss lander costs, but I don’t see much discussion about the development and launch costs of outposts, rovers, and other costs associated with life on the surface. I agree that launch of these items could be done by participating space agencies. But there development surely won’t fit under your $100M start-up costs.
3. Bigelow recently spoke of concepts of dropping fully constructed lunar habitats on the lunar surface. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/private-space-stations-bigelow-100120.html
4. Don’t underestimate media revenue. Live streaming video and documentaries, naming rights to the habitats and rovers, etc. Exploration missions into lava caves and never-been seen before locations should bring top dollar. GLXP is obsessed over media rights – for good reason!
5. I agree completely on the pre-selling of services to help pay for development. Elon has done this (cash flow positive after only a few flights due to pre-selling). Pre-selling is especially essential if your billionaire is only willing to put up a token of the start-up costs.
6. What terrestrial applications are there for landers or habitats or their components? Terrestial revenue streams makes this way easier!

And I echo Jim Gagnon’s offer (comment #6) for assistance in developing the business plan further. How can I help?

Colin Doughan

I’ve been thinking a bit about how to answer this. On the technical side, of course you could preland the propellant. It doesn’t even have to be “storable” per se, depending on the details. For instance, if you have a regenerative fuel cell system setup, then you probably have dewars and cryocoolers capable of preventing boiloff for LOX/LH2. Prelanding propellant isn’t that hard…

…but ultimately, what are you trying to accomplish. These aren’t just visitors, or explorers there for a short expedition. These are pioneers, settlers, colonists. Their ultimate goal is to find a way to make it so they don’t need to go home. Prelanding the return propellant and a return lander, and everything you would need for that might be better spent on providing them with extra provisions, backup lifesupport systems and tools, etc.

Henry Spencer has pointed out that there are times of the year where it’s almost impossible to get someone back from Antarctica for several months. I think I remember hearing a story about a female doctor who ended up getting appendicitis or something like that. Evacuation wasn’t an option, so she had to operate on herself. If it’s ok for people to willingly take those sorts of risks onto themselves for science missions to antarctica, why not for the Moon? Sure, the Moon is probably at least an order of magnitude (or two) more dangerous than the South Pole. But really, how many failure modes are there where you’ll definitely lose the crew if you don’t evacuate, but somehow they’ll be fine spending several days or even weeks trying to come back to earth?

I know that’s controversial, but I’m still not convinced that making it easy to abandon the base actually buys you as much as everyone seems to think it does.

~Jon