A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:

Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... ights.html

Notably it uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.


Bob Clark

Calculations for the all-liquid fueled Ariane 6 core as a SSTO:

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2013
The Coming SSTO's: multi-Vulcain Ariane.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... riane.html

Bob Clark

Great news here:

SPACE
NASA Plans to Make Water on the Moon.
APR 12, 2013 07:50 PM ET // BY IRENE KLOTZ


This mission builds on the LCROSS mission. I consider LCROSS to be
one of the most successful planetary missions ever developed since it
returned such profoundly important results at such low cost. The cost/
benefit ratio was tremendous. (As a mathematician I suppose I should
express that as the benefit/cost ratio was tremendous. ) I hope NASA
selects the same award-winning managers as for the LCROSS mission.

I do have a question about the mission. The article describes it will
have a limited lifetime because of the limited sunlight at the
location it will visit. But I recall there were locations close to
some shadowed craters that were nearly continually bathed in sunlight.
Could these locations be used to get a longer mission?

Bob Clark

Discussion of a low cost European crew capsule:

Budget Moon flights: lightweight crew capsule.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -crew.html


Bob Clark

According to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, NASA will not be
returning us to the Moon(*) but may engage in partnerships with other
space agencies or private entities who could.
Then it's interesting the ESA has the required lightweight in-space
stages and lightweight capsule in the Cygnus to accomplish this at low
cost.
Another key fact is that NASA has shown with SpaceX and now with
Orbital Sciences that development costs can be cut drastically (by 80
to 90% !) by following a commercial approach.
Then this could be a project NASA could encourage, at low cost to
NASA, by partnering with ESA and private entities like Golden Spike,
while at the same time satisfying the critics who want us to return to
the Moon.

Bob Clark

(*)US Won't Lead New Manned Moon Landings, NASA Chief Says.
by Miriam Kramer, SPACE.com Staff Writer
Date: 08 April 2013 Time: 01:41 PM ET
http://www.space.com/20557-nasa-moon-mi ... olden.html

NASA's commercial spaceflight program has the solution for not only
making the U.S. a space faring nation, but for making humanity a space
faring species:

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 3:
towards European human spaceflight.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... pacex.html

Bob Clark

The cost to NASA for lunar or other BEO missions can be cut drastically,
perhaps by three orders of magnitude, by adopting a combination
of four cost-cutting approaches:

1.)Commercial space approach. SpaceX and now Orbital Sciences have
shown that as much as 90% off of the development cost can be cut by
the cost-sharing of the commercial space approach.

2.)Go small. NASA’s SEV weighs about a third that of Orion. Orbital’s
Cygnus weighs about a quarter. Imagine how small, and low cost, your
lunar mission could be if you only had to transport a quarter of the
mass to the Moon.

3.)Use existing components. The huge development costs for the Apollo
program and of Constellation were because they had to use all newly
developed components. Those costs would be reduced greatly if you only
had to adapt already existing components. No Saturn V, Ares V, or SLS,
and their huge development costs, required.

4.)Use international partners. The cut in development cost by engaging
in cost-sharing is already included in the commercial space approach.
However, the cost to NASA can be cut even further by sharing
development costs with our international space partners such as the
ESA and Japan.

The advantages of extending the commercial space approach to BEO flights I discuss here:

Budget Moon Flights: letter to NASA.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -nasa.html

The National Research Council is soliciting input from the public
about what direction NASA should take regarding human spaceflight:

NRC Committee on Human Spaceflight Needs Input.
Posted by Marc Boucher Posted June 4, 2013 8:30 AM

http://spaceref.com/exploration/nrc-com ... input.html

Now's the time to let YOUR vision for space be heard!

Bob Clark