I looked for a topic on the launch vehicle. Is it decided? I would think a high proportion of the costs is the launch vehicle. No comments needed? Mike

Hi Mike, I think you have it right in that the greatest cost may well be tied up with the launch. Did you have any particular comments about the launch vehicle? Perhaps if the LM1 lander is small enough and some of the commercial space vehicles are ready, there may be more economical options to the conventional rocket.

As far as I understand, Lunar Mission One will commission the launcher rather than developing one, but my guess is that before they do that they will need to have gained a very clear idea about the technical challenges and requirements (for example, exactly how large and heavy the LM1 lander payload will be), and the constraints of budget etc.

Here's a valuable page which provides a Technical Review of LM1:

lunarmissionone.com/index.php/Business-C...echnical-review.html

The section on the launcher is about three quarters of the way down the page.

You might also be interested in a related forum post about a Lunar Lift Elevator:

lunarmissionone.com/index.php/forum/tech...p-soft-landings.html

Hi Mike, Yes, I saw those pages. My overall impression is that the entire project is hugely ambitous in terms of the amount that needs to be raised. If it has to be scaled back, then maybe launch costs can be halved from $121M to $60M.

One of the options to look at is Skylon, which looks set to become available in 2025 (about when LM1 plans to be ready to launch) and we might find a financial benefit in becoming one of their first LEO launch payloads. See < www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html > for some information on the project. Skylon is aimed at being a highly re-usable vehicle technology that is fuel and cost efficient for launching a wide range of items to orbit.

Thanks for this.
I've heard and read of similar projects to Skylon and it just makes a lot of sense, a reusable space plane (cost effective and as it says (hopefully) more reliable) x400 times more reliable??? Wow!!!

It is this kind of Space Plane that I am hoping may one day take day trippers into Earth Orbit (where there will be an Earth Viewing Platform Station) it also makes sense that such a craft could be used to get around the world to places far quicker than today eg Austrailia in about 1 hour! you could actually make day trips to virtually anywhere in the world...How great would that be?

If you look at the Reaction Engines website a bit more you will come across the LAPCAT concept plane which uses a Scimitar Engine which is similar in design to the Sabre Engines of Skylon. Brussels to Sydney expected to be about 2.5 hours.

The reason space planes are more efficient and dependable as a launch platform is because they are not taking all of the mass of Oxygen with them that is required to get to orbit. Virgin Galactic do it in piggyback mode from an aircraft with normal engines. Skylon just has a convertible engine (air breather most of the way up then rocket for the last bit).