How in the world would this cost a billion dollars? They must be using NASA cost models.
7 thoughts on “A Crowd-Funded Lunar Mission”
Comments are closed.
How in the world would this cost a billion dollars? They must be using NASA cost models.
Comments are closed.
“How in the world would this cost a billion dollars? They must be using NASA cost models.”
Well, yes. It is Europe, after all.
Posit an Ariane 5 launch as part of getting help they hope for from ESA governments, and you’re already at about $600, 000,000. Then have DDR and Arianespace do vehicle development by committee, which would put the hardware/software at Discovery mission levels. Then attach the costs of supporting academics to do data analysis and make demands on the engineers for more bandwidth for *their* instrument. All too easy to reach $1,000,000,000.
If I wanted this done, I’d posit 2 reuasable Falcon 9 launches, with auto docking of a TLI second stage to the descent vehicle, launched in the first launch. I’d have Surrey, or someone like them, do the science equipment, and Astrobotics do the lander. This would cost $5-7 million for the first launch, and $15 million for the second, because the TLI second stage would be expended. The lander would double those costs, and I’d put the data on the internet for analysis by citizen science types, including whatever academic teams want to raise money for data analysis. So, around $60,000,000. This would have a larger lander with more data available than what the group in the article proposes.
As an example, it could have a GPR radar system, for getting broader data at higher accuracy than present, with ground truth from the lander confirming what the interpretation of the GPR data tells us. Using that GPR to look for lava tubes filled with ice under the landing site should be doable. It’s definitely doable as a separate mission with an orbiting GPR looking for all the Moon’s lava tubes within 2 kilometers of the surface. Anyway, that would be a more valuable mission for settlers than a lander, as a first robot mission, at this stage.
Is it intended to be of value to settlers?
From what I can tell, the chief motivator behind this mission is nationalism.
It’s a *British* mission, old chap! For Queen and Country — patriotic duty — don’t you see?
“From what I can tell, the chief motivator behind this mission is nationalism. ”
I agree on that all too well, Ed, with the exception that the nationalism will smell a lot more partisan, since Scotland is staying in the UK, prolonging the life of the Labor Party. I *did* preface my suggestions with “If I wanted this done”. That’s because, AFAIK, *no* government is interested in settling the Solar System. The closest I’ve seen is that posting at the petitions site at WH.gov
It’s hard to keep a jack-boot on the neck of a colony that’s months away by your fastest ship. Why should a gooberment not interested in the freedom of it’s subjects go to the expense of founding such a colony?
The lander is only about 3 times the mass of the Surveyor landers, which were launched by Atlas Centaur. The Falcon 9 v1.1 can almost duplicate the AC lunar throwweight. So even a $100 million Falcon launch, a $100 million service module, and a $200 million lander could do the job. The typical aerospace cost model is to take what you think it will cost, and multiply by 2. So $1 billion is typical.
NASA cost models remind me of the old joke about the Programmer’s Time Estimation Algorithm. Whenever an experience programmer is asked about how long it’ll take to write some new code, he can often come up with an initial time estimate fairly quickly. Before he tells his manager how long he thinks it’ll take, he doubles the digit and goes to the next higher unit. So, a 3 week estimate gets reported as 6 months. He knows his manager will cut the time allowed in half, so he’ll get 3 months to write the code. And it’ll be late.
NASA cost estimates likely work in the same way. Their engineers and analysts will come up with an initial price tag. Before they report it, they double the digits and add at least two zeros, say $10 million becomes $200 million. That’s what they’ll ask for – and the program will bust the higher estimate. The number of significant NASA projects that have come in on time and on budget is quite small, almost to the point of being nonexistent.
As for this lander, I have a question. If they’re looking for possible water, it’s my understanding it’s most likely to be found at the bottom of a deep polar crater where the sun never shines. If that’s true, how do they plan to power the lander? The artist’s conception shows small solar panels but won’t those be ineffective in the dark?